530 réponses à ce sujet

[Sidney]

Vaeliorin wrote...

To be fair, I (who I guess qualifies as a "purist") do actually enjoy looting stuff.  It's generally one of my goals to loot everything that is lootable in game.  I feel disappointment when I finish a fight and there's nothing to loot.  Loot is interesting. 

As you even admit, loot is mostly not interesting. Your only "interest" is in the money it brings which is why you want massive armor and not elfroot. I find it grossly annoying to know that there's nothing there I care about in pretty much every fight in the game. Now when I whack Jarvia or Branka or a High Dragon NOW I'm interested because there will be something interesting and something that will help my party. You say you hate grinding but the DAO looting system is just a form of grinding, it is the economic equivilent of killing rats for XP.

The root of this problem, other than elfroot, is that too much high end and quality equipment is purchasable instead of earned. I hate buying Lifegiver for example and if that, and those elements like it,  wasn't out there to buy I'd not have to worry about looting at all but Bioware has always had the odd economics of weak merchants with amazing items and evil villians with crap - making one wonder why said villans don't just kill said mercahnts and become powerful evil villians. Don't make high end magical eqipment available for sale. That simple adjustment would totally change the dynamics of looting and then it could just be an OCD thing for those than want to do it.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Sidney wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

To be fair, I (who I guess qualifies as a "purist") do actually enjoy looting stuff.  It's generally one of my goals to loot everything that is lootable in game.  I feel disappointment when I finish a fight and there's nothing to loot.  Loot is interesting. 

As you even admit, loot is mostly not interesting. Your only "interest" is in the money it brings which is why you want massive armor and not elfroot. I find it grossly annoying to know that there's nothing there I care about in pretty much every fight in the game. Now when I whack Jarvia or Branka or a High Dragon NOW I'm interested because there will be something interesting and something that will help my party. You say you hate grinding but the DAO looting system is just a form of grinding, it is the economic equivilent of killing rats for XP.

The root of this problem, other than elfroot, is that too much high end and quality equipment is purchasable instead of earned. I hate buying Lifegiver for example and if that, and those elements like it,  wasn't out there to buy I'd not have to worry about looting at all but Bioware has always had the odd economics of weak merchants with amazing items and evil villians with crap - making one wonder why said villans don't just kill said mercahnts and become powerful evil villians. Don't make high end magical eqipment available for sale. That simple adjustment would totally change the dynamics of looting and then it could just be an OCD thing for those than want to do it.

So everyone that likes looting has OCD and their only interest in it is to make money? And people call me pretentious. *sigh*

[FieryDove]

Just give us a toolset for da2 and we can fix the looting aspect as well...bah

[AllThatJazz]

Sidney wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

To be fair, I (who I guess qualifies as a "purist") do actually enjoy looting stuff.  It's generally one of my goals to loot everything that is lootable in game.  I feel disappointment when I finish a fight and there's nothing to loot.  Loot is interesting. 

As you even admit, loot is mostly not interesting. Your only "interest" is in the money it brings which is why you want massive armor and not elfroot. I find it grossly annoying to know that there's nothing there I care about in pretty much every fight in the game. Now when I whack Jarvia or Branka or a High Dragon NOW I'm interested because there will be something interesting and something that will help my party. You say you hate grinding but the DAO looting system is just a form of grinding, it is the economic equivilent of killing rats for XP.

The root of this problem, other than elfroot, is that too much high end and quality equipment is purchasable instead of earned. I hate buying Lifegiver for example and if that, and those elements like it,  wasn't out there to buy I'd not have to worry about looting at all but Bioware has always had the odd economics of weak merchants with amazing items and evil villians with crap - making one wonder why said villans don't just kill said mercahnts and become powerful evil villians. Don't make high end magical eqipment available for sale. That simple adjustment would totally change the dynamics of looting and then it could just be an OCD thing for those than want to do it.

Loot, and therefore  looting is interesting if a person finds it so. That you do not find it interesting does not invalidate it for those of us who do ...

I like it for two reasons (neither of them monetary)

1) The possibility of rare, or more unusual drops. Not valuable high-end kewl weaponry necessarily, just something that's a bit different (something made from a new material, a potion I haven't seen before, etc) . Not just high dragons drop that sort of kit.

2) I realise the concept of 'realism' is a bit of a dodgy one to get into when discussing a fantasy game, but it kind of irks me in games when you get groups of enemies fighting with swords, shields, crossbows, staves etc then when they die those things just .. disappear. Some stuff I can understand. Someone's sword might have broken, or their robe got ripped to shreds by the claws of my dog or whatever, but almost everything? To kill a dozen enemies and find one or two items on their (collective) corpses is .. meh. For want of a better word 

However, I agree with you that I would kind of like to see more really nice stuff in the world at large or on foes waiting to be found, rather than in the grubby hands of merchants. Grrrr.

Modifié par AllThatJazz, 09 octobre 2010 - 02:36 .

[Sidney]

AllThatJazz wrote...)

1) The possibility of rare, or more unusual drops. Not valuable high-end kewl weaponry necessarily, just something that's a bit different (something made from a new material, a potion I haven't seen before, etc) . Not just high dragons drop that sort of kit.

2) I realise the concept of 'realism' is a bit of a dodgy one to get into when discussing a fantasy game, but it kind of irks me in games when you get groups of enemies fighting with swords, shields, crossbows, staves etc then when they die those things just .. disappear. Some stuff I can understand. Someone's sword might have broken, or their robe got ripped to shreds by the claws of my dog or whatever, but almost everything? To kill a dozen enemies and find one or two items on their (collective) corpses is .. meh. For want of a better word 

1. I don't want to eliminate loot but does it lessen your joy if instead of that potion being on "Hurlock" it is locked in a chest in the room with him? You still get the joy of discovery without the annoyance of clicking each dead thing in the room and instead just open up one box/crate?

2. I can't even get near realism in these games. In that case the potion on "Hurlock", it  should be broken from the force of my hammer smash or him falling to the ground. If I burn my foes then there should be less stuff than if I gas them. I'm not even sure what crushing prison does to a man but it likely isn't good for whatever he has on him. Since the drops have no relation to the mode of destruction I chose for them it is less not more realistic to me. The better overall answer should be that the stuff is functionally worthless after it has been bashed, burn, ripped and blow up.  I'd almost be ok if all this broken and damaged stuff from drops was 1cp a bit or something so looting really became a "joy of discovery" bit and not an economic reality.

[AllThatJazz]

Sidney wrote...

AllThatJazz wrote...)

1) The possibility of rare, or more unusual drops. Not valuable high-end kewl weaponry necessarily, just something that's a bit different (something made from a new material, a potion I haven't seen before, etc) . Not just high dragons drop that sort of kit.

2) I realise the concept of 'realism' is a bit of a dodgy one to get into when discussing a fantasy game, but it kind of irks me in games when you get groups of enemies fighting with swords, shields, crossbows, staves etc then when they die those things just .. disappear. Some stuff I can understand. Someone's sword might have broken, or their robe got ripped to shreds by the claws of my dog or whatever, but almost everything? To kill a dozen enemies and find one or two items on their (collective) corpses is .. meh. For want of a better word 

1. I don't want to eliminate loot but does it lessen your joy if instead of that potion being on "Hurlock" it is locked in a chest in the room with him? You still get the joy of discovery without the annoyance of clicking each dead thing in the room and instead just open up one box/crate?

Errr, I guess not. But I can't honestly say that my joy is diminished significantly by spending a few seconds clicking on little bags on the ground. Maybe I'm just weird. It might lessen my joy if we're in the middle of the countryside rather than a room, though. Just cos a random crate wouldn't make an awful lot of sense. Though again, sense in fantasy games is a grey area, to say the least!

2. I can't even get near realism in these games. In that case the potion on "Hurlock", it  should be broken from the force of my hammer smash or him falling to the ground. If I burn my foes then there should be less stuff than if I gas them. I'm not even sure what crushing prison does to a man but it likely isn't good for whatever he has on him. Since the drops have no relation to the mode of destruction I chose for them it is less not more realistic to me. The better overall answer should be that the stuff is functionally worthless after it has been bashed, burn, ripped and blow up.  I'd almost be ok if all this broken and damaged stuff from drops was 1cp a bit or something so looting really became a "joy of discovery" bit and not an economic reality.

Which is why I hesitated before writing it. Still, as a 'pro-looter' (er, not in real life obviously ), I still can't get away from the idea that MOAR=BETTER.  What can I say, I live in a material world.

[SirOccam]

AllThatJazz wrote...

Plus, why does everything have to 'progress events' or be about the story? Can't some things just ... be? I mean, a vast majority of NPCs in the world have nothing to do with quests, or the plot or anything - they're just there for a bit of flavour and atmosphere. To extend that - romances, sidequests, party banter, the ability to choose the PC's hairstyle - none of this stuff progresses the main story, and yet the game would be the lesser without these things. 'Tis similar, for me (though admittedly to a lesser extent), with looting and inventory. Part of the charm of a game like Origins is that just occasionally, an enemy might drop something interesting etc.

I never said that everything has to progress events or be part of the storyline. I, too, enjoy looking at the scenery and customizing my characters' appearance, hairstyle and all.

But here's the thing...if someone didn't like those, they are free to ignore the scenery and just go with whatever default appearance shows up. They are not punished in any way for doing so. I can skip looting, but I am punished for doing so.

And anyway, I would disagree that romances and sidequests don't progress the story. Maybe not the "main story," but then, I don't know why it was ever called the "main story" in the first place. I've only ever been referring to "story" in general, be it crucial to the plot of the game or not so crucial.

[SirOccam]

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
[quote]SirOccam wrote...

"Blackmailing the mage" does affect the story. "Persuading Rogek" also affects the story. Not saving the smithy's daughter affects the story as well. "Being poor" does not.

Having the best bow in the game affects gameplay, but not the story.[/quote]

Who cares that being poor does not affect the story?[/quote]
*raises hand* Me. I do. That's...pretty much what I've been saying. If it doesn't affect the story, then being poor is not so much a story path as a burden on the player. And therefore there's no real reason (for me) to want to be poor.

[quote]Why is that even important? What has that to do with making money in the game to obtain items you want? To me there is absolutely no relation required between the story and making money.

And you are wrong about the bow. Not that it matters, because you have failed to make the story requirement clear anyway.[/quote]
I don't know how many other ways I can explain it. The way story and making money are related in my argument is as follows:
1. I like buying things
2. I don't like most of my characters having to choose between being scavengers and being poor
3. If being poor were reflected in the story, then I would no longer mind it.
4. But it's not reflected in the story, and therefore I do mind it
5. I would like more alternatives to making money besides what's already there
6. If #5 is not going to happen, then I'd at least like looting to be less annoying.

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
[quote]SirOccam wrote...

Yes I do love RPGs. I love being able to make decisions and take actions and watch as they affect the world around me. Looting corpse after corpse for junk loot to haul off to a vendor doesn't do that for me. Neither does having a tunic with one more point of dexterity on it.

It's clear to see you are way more entertained by some parts of RPGs than I am. I find the story the most compelling part of RPGs, and inventory management probably the least compelling. Everything else falls somewhere in between. I don't find stat allocation all that thrilling either, nor delving into too much of the nitty-gritty details about gear upgrades and spell effects or many of the other aspects of the "mechanics" side of things. (BEFORE ANYONE FLIPS OUT: please note that I am in no way saying these things should be taken out.)

So we enjoy different parts of RPGs to different extents...there's nothing wrong with that. I never suggested looting should be done away with.[/quote]
There is something very wrong with that. The part of the gameplay that you don't like needs to be nerfed only because you don't like that optional part of the game. If you don't like to play that part of the game then that's fine. But people who like that part of the game should not be punished becuase of your laziness.[/quote]
Excuse me, but no I am not lazy. I tried putting this as simply as I could, but you either can't understand or you refuse to. It is an optional part of the game, but only in the sense that you can willingly give up one of the main sources of revenue in the game. It is not optional in that there is something there to replace it. Before you bring up quests, that is not a replacement, that supplements it. Together, looting and quests provide all your income. Restricting yourselves to quests only just means you make less money. You can't choose a different path to make the same amount of money.

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
[quote]SirOccam wrote...

What do you mean "this time?" In NONE of these examples has it mattered whether you are rich or poor. That's been my point all along. If you disagree, then please tell me how not saving the Smithy's daughter because you're poor turns out differently from not saving the Smithy's daughter because you are just a greedy bastard.

And I don't understand why your advice would be not to loot anything. Like I said, that would severely cripple my character's finances because looting is probably the main revenue stream in DAO. And here's where my point comes in: having crippled finances is a burden on ME, the player, and not on my character. In other words, it's just annoying and not compelling because it doesn't offer any kind of unique experience. Anything I can do "because I'm poor" I can still do if I have tons of money.[/quote]
You absolutely do not make any sense. Why would being rich or being poor have to be a requirement for the outcome of said quest or even be related to the quest. The quest was not designed that way. It escapes me why this is a problem for you. And of course... You don't need to loot everything. There are alternatives to make money.[/quote]
Well you're the one who brought up the Smithy's daughter quest in the first place, so you tell me why it should be related. I'm not even sure why it was mentioned at all. I think it was back when you were thinking I was saying money is not part of the game or whatever that was.

If you like, however, use a different example. Like the Rogek quest. Explain to me how blackmailing Rogek turns out differently if your motivation is that you're poor. Compared to doing it because you're greedy, or you hate dwarves, or whatever else. The answer is that it doesn't change it at all. And that's why I've been saying being poor isn't part of the story.

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
[quote]SirOccam wrote...

Wrong. How does my suggestion result in more money? It's simple math here, honestly.

Let's say in DAO you loot x corpses, which each have an average value (based on coin and the sale value of any loot) of y. That results in a total monetary income of xy.

In my suggestion, there would be (x/20) lootable corpses, and the value obtainable from each would be (y*20). Monetary income, then, is (x/20)(y*20). Which is the same as xy. Which is the same as it is now. (And bear in mind that the "20" is just a random example number. It could be anything, as long as the same number is applied to both numbers.)

If the "effort" is so entertaining for you, then would you be in favor of more effort? Should you now have to search out certain merchants to sell certain goods? Surely  a barkeep or tavern owner shouldn't have any reason to purchase your bulk Darkspawn Daggers. How about give them a "satiation" limit, where they only have a finite amount of money for buying your stuff? Doesn't that mean more effort required, therefore making the game more fun? Do you honestly think any of those things would make the story more compelling?[/quote]
Because it does not make any sense. The items you'll find would be 20 times more expensive. How about potions and poisons you'll find in loot? And arrows? Bolts? Traps? Etc. Should their price be raised as well? And what if you need to buy them? Will they be 20 times more expensive too? You would never be able to find any low tier shields, armor and weapons. Isn't that obvious?[/quote]
Why would buying items be 20 times more expensive? I never said that. If you did that then the equation would no longer be equal.

[quote]Adding an artificial limit to merchants does not solve anything. Why collect stuff if you cannot sell it. Think, man. It does not compute.[/quote]
And what does having the current rate of item drops solve, that reducing that number would now no longer be a solution? And you would be able to sell it, just not all to the same vendor. It would add realism, and increase the effort you have to go to. Since "effort" is always such a good thing in your eyes, surely you'd see this as a positive change.

And one small note here, since you mentioned traps. I also didn't like traps. I didn't like making them, and I didn't like using them. So you know why I am not calling for any changes to the trap system? Because choosing not to use them did not significantly hamper my gameplay. That is a truly optional system right there. Choosing to skip looting, on the other hand, comes with a huge price that you have to pay.

[quote]At the start of the game finding low level gear is used to equip my henchmen. Later better gear appears and bit by bit they'll get better stuff. And most of that is found on corpses or in chests and often related to quests. Then there are those expensive ones you can buy, but you don't really need. They are a bit of an extra. For that you have to put in some effort. Nothing is for free..

There is not much "effort" required. You just loot corpses and open chests. It's a click away. If you don't want that then do the quests which will get you either free great gear or lots of money. If you think you spend too much money then create your own potions and poisons. You can steal if you like. But that's exactly what you don't want to do. For you it's too much effort. I don't see it as an effort at all.[/quote]
Of course you see it as effort; that's why you've been calling it "effort" this whole time. You keep making and abandoning new arguments as they are shown to be either irrelevant or just plain incorrect.

Then some keep rearing their heads, like this assumption that I just want "lots of money" or that I have some aversion to engaging in any kind of commerce. I don't want to be rewarded for nothing. What I want is the option to do something more interesting than rifling through the belongings of the people I've just killed for stuff to haul to the nearest vendor, and I'd rather be rewarded for THAT.

I never argued that looting a corpse was physically taxing or anything. It's just BORING. Do you understand that? Can you comprehend the difference? I DON'T LIKE DOING IT. I'd rather make money by doing things I DO like to do.

[quote]And looting corpses is really optional. At the end of the game I usually have money left. So, I spend it on tomes, or buy stuff for my armies which will give me extra experience points, or just simply save it for when I need to buy some standard stuff when I need to switch to a DLC which rips off any DLC-items the PC and henchmen use. If the inventory "problem" is that severe as you percieve it is then don't loot. Or loot less. You can obtain lots of money by other means.[/quote]
It's optional in the sense that it's possible not to do it, but it's less of an option than the trap example is. You can't just do quests "instead," because quests and looting are both part of how you make money.

Maybe this analogy will illustrate my point. Let's say you are given a wardrobe, but it only has sweaters for tops. No t-shirts, no collared shirts, no hoodies, etc. Let's say you don't like wearing sweaters. Maybe you think they're uncomfortable, maybe it's the middle of summer, maybe you just don't like the look. You point this out and someone responds by saying "you don't HAVE to wear a sweater." You respond by saying you don't like going shirtless either, and that you wish there was something else you could wear. Then they helpfully reply that you can wear pants "instead." Well that's not really a replacement, now is it? You were already going to wear pants.


[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I wave away your irrational story requirement argument. It doesn't make any sense for reasons mentioned at the top. But maybe you can shine some light on that. About your proposal: You are not adding anything to the game, because your proposals don't make any sense either. I've written about that above.[/quote]
Wow, that must come in handy. You can just "wave away" people's arguments if you don't like them or can't understand them. I'm sure that's much easier than thinking about them.

The reason it doesn't make sense to you is because you apparently can't understand it. I never said "making money" had to be related to the story. I only said that because "being poor" was not related to the story, being so has no allure for me.

My proposal WOULD be adding something to the game, because it would not remove looting and it would be providing other, additional means. That way there would be alternatives. I gave some of Fable II's methods as examples. Buying and selling property, investing in businesses, etc. If I could do something like that instead of looting, I would gladly do so.

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
[quote]SirOccam wrote...

And I'm not asking you to give up the "fun" of looting corpse after corpse. And I'm not saying I don't think effort should be required. I'm not asking for an easy button. But here's the thing: I don't think "effort" is always a good thing. There is effort that is compelling, and effort that is tedious. Looting corpses is not compelling. Fighting across the bridge in the Deep Roads when you meet the Legion of the Dead is compelling. Running back and forth to vendors is not compelling. Completing quests is compelling.

Let's apply it to real life for a second. Paperwork is generally not compelling. Cutting down on paperwork is efficient; it doesn't mean you're lazy. There is plenty of work that IS compelling.

Is any of this making sense?[/quote]
You really amaze me. I keep telling you that there are alternatives. I went into detail about that and all you can think of is looting corpses. These alternatives can be a large part of your income. The fun I have is with the combined package of methods to obtain money. How many times do I need to say that I loved the way BioWare designed those? Now, go play the game and use them. Enjoy. [/quote]
You don't need to say it at all. I never once questioned it.

But you're telling me there are alternatives when there's really just "the rest." That other stuff was already part of the game, and I was already doing those. I haven't been skipping sidequests in favor of just looting.

[Vaeliorin]

Sidney wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...
To be fair, I (who I guess qualifies as a "purist") do actually enjoy looting stuff.  It's generally one of my goals to loot everything that is lootable in game.  I feel disappointment when I finish a fight and there's nothing to loot.  Loot is interesting.

As you even admit, loot is mostly not interesting. Your only "interest" is in the money it brings which is why you want massive armor and not elfroot.

No, my interest is in the moment of excitement in not knowing what might be there.  The potential of something interesting.

I find it grossly annoying to know that there's nothing there I care about in pretty much every fight in the game. Now when I whack Jarvia or Branka or a High Dragon NOW I'm interested because there will be something interesting and something that will help my party.

Well, I'd like the loot system to change somewhat such that everyone has a chance (a small one, mind you) of dropping something interesting.  But the way DA is set up, I'm happy to hope to find something that sells well, since many of the best items in the game are bought (which, admittedly, I don't particularly care for.)

You say you hate grinding but the DAO looting system is just a form of grinding, it is the economic equivilent of killing rats for XP.

It's significantly different from grinding.  Grinding is repeatedly doing the same thing over and over in the hopes of getting a specific drop (or levels, I suppose, in some games.)  In DA, I'm not doing the same thing over and over.  I'm progressing through the game.  Yes, I suppose you could say I'm looting over and over, but at that point you might as well complain that I'm attacking over and over, or talking over and over.

The root of this problem, other than elfroot, is that too much high end and quality equipment is purchasable instead of earned.

This I agree with.

I hate buying Lifegiver for example and if that, and those elements like it,  wasn't out there to buy I'd not have to worry about looting at all but Bioware has always had the odd economics of weak merchants with amazing items and evil villians with crap - making one wonder why said villans don't just kill said mercahnts and become powerful evil villians.

Everyone knows attacking merchants is asking to be killed.  Haven't you played an RPG before? 

(Just to point out, since people like to take things wrong all the time, I'm kidding.  It is, however, somewhat traditional to make shopkeepers insanely overpowered entities such that they can wipe out entire high level parties in a round or two just to keep people from just killing them to get their wares.)

Don't make high end magical eqipment available for sale.

The occasional high-end item is okay, but I think DA kind of went overboard on it.

That simple adjustment would totally change the dynamics of looting and then it could just be an OCD thing for those than want to do it.

Not everyone who loots does it because it's an "OCD" thing.

SirOccam wrote...
Why would buying items be 20 times more
expensive? I never said that. If you did that then the equation would no
longer be equal.

Economics.  If those crossbow bolts I found now sell for 20X what they used to (say, 1 gold instead of 5 silver) then they'd have to cost at least 1 gold to buy or I could make infinite money by purchasing them at a reasonable price and selling them for a high one.  Unless you completely replace the loot you find with non-usable items, simply things that are worth money, you have to increase the price of usable items from merchants in order for the economy to make any sort of sense whatsoever.

Modifié par Vaeliorin, 09 octobre 2010 - 11:38 .

[AllThatJazz]

SirOccam wrote...

AllThatJazz wrote...

Plus, why does everything have to 'progress events' or be about the story? Can't some things just ... be? I mean, a vast majority of NPCs in the world have nothing to do with quests, or the plot or anything - they're just there for a bit of flavour and atmosphere. To extend that - romances, sidequests, party banter, the ability to choose the PC's hairstyle - none of this stuff progresses the main story, and yet the game would be the lesser without these things. 'Tis similar, for me (though admittedly to a lesser extent), with looting and inventory. Part of the charm of a game like Origins is that just occasionally, an enemy might drop something interesting etc.

I never said that everything has to progress events or be part of the storyline. I, too, enjoy looking at the scenery and customizing my characters' appearance, hairstyle and all.

But here's the thing...if someone didn't like those, they are free to ignore the scenery and just go with whatever default appearance shows up. They are not punished in any way for doing so. I can skip looting, but I am punished for doing so.

And anyway, I would disagree that romances and sidequests don't progress the story. Maybe not the "main story," but then, I don't know why it was ever called the "main story" in the first place. I've only ever been referring to "story" in general, be it crucial to the plot of the game or not so crucial.

I used the word 'main' once, actually in response to someone else's post. Apologies. Nonetheless, it's just about choices isn't it? As I've already posted, I'm currently playing a game of Fallout 3 as a pure survivalist (which is my absolute favourite type of character to play) - I don't buy anything, from a single merchant. The only things I use are the things that I find on my travels. I've done similar in Origins (though usually can't resist Wade).

Choosing not to use merchants means that I don't have access to crafting (until Golems of Amgarrak), and I don't have access to loads of really good weapons and armour, and there are even item sets I'm unable to complete. So I'm, effectively, punished for choosing to ignore those things about the game that could make my character more powerful. But that's up to me. Why should these things about the game be changed to accommodate my playing preferences when plenty of others enjoy them just as they are?

Modifié par AllThatJazz, 09 octobre 2010 - 11:48 .

[SirOccam]

AllThatJazz wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

AllThatJazz wrote...

Plus, why does everything have to 'progress events' or be about the story? Can't some things just ... be? I mean, a vast majority of NPCs in the world have nothing to do with quests, or the plot or anything - they're just there for a bit of flavour and atmosphere. To extend that - romances, sidequests, party banter, the ability to choose the PC's hairstyle - none of this stuff progresses the main story, and yet the game would be the lesser without these things. 'Tis similar, for me (though admittedly to a lesser extent), with looting and inventory. Part of the charm of a game like Origins is that just occasionally, an enemy might drop something interesting etc.

I never said that everything has to progress events or be part of the storyline. I, too, enjoy looking at the scenery and customizing my characters' appearance, hairstyle and all.

But here's the thing...if someone didn't like those, they are free to ignore the scenery and just go with whatever default appearance shows up. They are not punished in any way for doing so. I can skip looting, but I am punished for doing so.

And anyway, I would disagree that romances and sidequests don't progress the story. Maybe not the "main story," but then, I don't know why it was ever called the "main story" in the first place. I've only ever been referring to "story" in general, be it crucial to the plot of the game or not so crucial.

I used the word 'main' once, actually in response to someone else's post. Apologies. Nonetheless, it's just about choices isn't it? As I've already posted, I'm currently playing a game of Fallout 3 as a pure survivalist (which is my absolute favourite type of character to play) - I don't buy anything, from a single merchant. The only things I use are the things that I find on my travels. I've done similar in Origins (though usually can't resist Wade).

Choosing not to use merchants means that I don't have access to crafting (until Golems of Amgarrak), and I don't have access to loads of really good weapons and armour, and there are even item sets I'm unable to complete. So I'm, effectively, punished for choosing to ignore those things about the game that could make my character more powerful. But that's up to me. Why should these things about the game be changed to accommodate my playing preferences when plenty of others enjoy them just as they are?

But if you find that your enjoyment of the survivalist playstyle outweighs the penalties it incurs, then what's the problem? I don't even know how the game could be changed to support that better. It seems like enduring the penalties is sort of the whole point of playing like that.

I really am confused by all the outrage over this simple suggestion. I'm not asking for anything drastic. The amount of loot is not a binary value...it's not just off or on. I used a factor of 20 as an example, but it doesn't have to be that big. What if they reduced the drop rate to, say, 80% of what it currently is in Origins? Would that really be so game-breakingly bad? Be honest.

What is it about Origins' drop rate that is so perfect? Or perhaps you think there should be even more loot? I think the objections here are less about the system being objectively good as it is in Origins and more about slippery slope fallacies and jumping to conclusions.

Let's not forget that this all just started from a simple observation that it is a little strange that looting corpses is such an integral part of RPGs, yet you rarely hear about it in other stories. Can you not at least admit that it is...I don't know, noticeable? Maybe even a little odd? It seems like so many people here simply can't cope with the idea of looking at these things we take for granted and asking why they are how they are. Like it's blasphemous to do so. Reminds me of the Catholic Church reacting to Galileo. "How DARE you question our precious RPG gospel?"

I mean, fine, discard the entire idea if you want; I don't care. I'm not married to it. It was just a spur-of-the-moment thing I came up with. I do dislike the amount of junk loot juggling in Origins, but overall I just think there are a lot of weird things in RPGs.

• Like tanking...what's up with that? An entire system of battle based on slinging insults?
• Corpse scavenging, as we've been over. It's become a standard, yet you hardly see it happen in stories outside RPGs. Why?
• Why do people almost never care that you walk into their house without permission and search through their belongings for anything of value?
• What does it mean to wear a ring that has +3 dexterity? How does a character look at two rings and decide that one is going to contribute to his survival slightly better than the other?

Heresy, I know. I'm not saying these things are all unacceptable, nor that none of them have good reasons for being as they are. But I do think many of them came from pen and paper RPGs, and the good reasons for them being THERE may not apply any longer. Do they all have to be the way they are? Why?

Modifié par SirOccam, 10 octobre 2010 - 02:51 .

[AlanC9]

SirOccam wrote...
Like tanking...what's up with that? An entire system of battle based on slinging insults?

Well, that one's easy. If heavily-armored characters can't draw enemy attention onto themselves, they're worthless. Might as well swap them out for characters who do lots of damage instead. Then all classes end up in a DPS race. Which isn't a bad thing, but ends up a bit monotonous.

Unlike the other things in your post, this one actually has been thought about.

Modifié par AlanC9, 10 octobre 2010 - 03:00 .

[SirOccam]

AlanC9 wrote...

SirOccam wrote...
Like tanking...what's up with that? An entire system of battle based on slinging insults?

Well, that one's easy. If heavily-armored characters can't draw enemy attention onto themselves, they're worthless. Might as well swap them out for characters who do lots of damage instead. Then all classes end up in a DPS race.

Why not give the "dps classes" de-aggro abilities instead of giving "tanks" aggro generating abilities? The whole concept of "aggro" is still weird though, but evading attention once you have it seems at least a little more reasonable than constantly shouting at enemies to ignore the people throwing fireballs at them.

Why not just give the "tanks" better dps and give them something else to do besides aggro? Why not base classes on something else besides dps vs. survivability? Like skills or what weapon sets they can use? Hell, why have classes at all? Why not give more story-related reasons for bringing someone along instead of skill- or dps-related reasons?

If we do keep warrior/rogue/mage, then what if we could make physical locations more influential? Maybe an enemy shouldn't decide to go for a mage who's standing directly behind a hulking warrior with a massive hammer or whatever. And if it does, maybe that warrior should be able to interfere in a decisive and powerful way. Maybe interception could be a warrior's shtick instead of taunting. I can certainly see the dramatic value in wanting to protect certain people in a party.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

Well, that one's easy. If heavily-armored characters can't draw enemy attention onto themselves, they're worthless. Might as well swap them out for characters who do lots of damage instead. Then all classes end up in a DPS race. Which isn't a bad thing, but ends up a bit monotonous.

The taunting mechanic wouldn't be necessary if we could just get in our enemies' way.

If you could block doorways so monsters couldn't get past you, that would be sufficient to hold the attention of your foes.  They simply wouldn't have another available target.

Modern tanking is a by-product of a lack of collision detection.

That's an advancement I'd actually like to see.  Let us stand our ground and hold position - the game could even use something like DAO's physical resistance scores to determine how good at it we'd be.

As for archers and mages who can attack at range, that's what armour and dodging and abjuration magic are for.

[tmp7704]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The taunting mechanic wouldn't be necessary if we could just get in our enemies' way.

If you could block doorways so monsters couldn't get past you, that would be sufficient to hold the attention of your foes.  They simply wouldn't have another available target.

Modern tanking is a by-product of a lack of collision detection.

That's an advancement I'd actually like to see.  Let us stand our ground and hold position - the game could even use something like DAO's physical resistance scores to determine how good at it we'd be.

As for archers and mages who can attack at range, that's what armour and dodging and abjuration magic are for.

This article questions that concept as one of "myths" surrounding the concept of tank and the "holy trinity" in general. Or at least points out significant caveats.

It may be of some extra interest given the author is currently in charge of BioWare's forthcoming MMO.

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
If you could block doorways so monsters couldn't get past you, that would be sufficient to hold the attention of your foes.  They simply wouldn't have another available target.

Modern tanking is a by-product of a lack of collision detection.

If you're fighting in an area with doorways. There's also an exploit issue with that tactic unless the AI can be taught when it's better to accept a ranged duel rather than bother attacking the tanks. (If we're just accepting the AI being dumb then we might as well stick with the design we have)

It would also lead to a lot of battles being fought in doorways., which wouldn't look all that good. I get the feeling the devs wouldn't like those gameplay videos much, though I suppose they could just fight badly in anything they release.

[upsettingshorts]

tmp7704 wrote...
This article questions that concept as one of "myths" surrounding the concept of tank and the "holy trinity" in general. Or at least points out significant caveats.

It may be of some extra interest given the author is currently in charge of BioWare's forthcoming MMO.

It's interesting.  In Vent with my guild one night we were discussing potential MMO ideas, and the subject was my proposed notion of one set in the American Wild West.

The topic was the idea of translating traditional MMO conventions to that setting and included the challenge of what the concept of a "raid boss" could be in the West, among other things.

One of the problems was one of class, and I was trying to explain to my guildies what exactly a tank does, as their first response was that it absorbs damage.  Not necessarily, I said, what the tank is responsible for is holding the monster's attention.  Absorbing damage is just the method through which it manages to stay alive through the process.  

Replacing the notion of a monster needing to be distracted is all that would be necessary to remove or at least transfer the responsibilities of a traditional tank to something else.  A cover system would be one way, for example, or removing the necessity for a tank and replacing it with tactics like fire and maneuver.  

Anyway, that's a sidetrack but one I thought was interesting.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

If you're fighting in an area with doorways.

There's a doorway somewhere.  I've never liked this mechanic of a battle taking place in an unescapable room.  You came in through a door somewhere, or you came down a path, or around the edge of a cliff - these are all obstacles and terrain that could be used tactically.

Though then the optimal tactic would always be to pull your opponent to your previously chosen terrain, almost regardless of how far away that it.

Except...

There's also an exploit issue with that tactic unless the AI can be taught when it's better to accept a ranged duel rather than bother attacking the tanks.

If the AI tries to do the same thing, then what?  Every encounter is fought only from range until one side chooses an especially audacious and high-risk closing manoeuvre.  There's a terrific real-world example of battle happening just like this:

World War I

That probably wouldn't be fun gameplay.

It would also lead to a lot of battles being fought in doorways.

Remember the Cloakwood Mines in BG?

[tmp7704]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

There's a doorway somewhere.  I've never liked this mechanic of a battle taking place in an unescapable room.  You came in through a door somewhere, or you came down a path, or around the edge of a cliff - these are all obstacles and terrain that could be used tactically.

If it's outdoors the chances of finding funnels wide just enough for one person to fit that can't be otherwise navigated around is pretty slim. It can easily lead to absurd designs like in ME2 where you could instantly tell in advance a fight is about to break out... because the area was littered with convenient pieces high just enough to provide cover.

Modifié par tmp7704, 10 octobre 2010 - 07:01 .

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

World War I

That probably wouldn't be fun gameplay.

Says you.

In any case, the kind of frontage that results in trench warfare is impossible on the scale of squad based combat so the comparison doesn't work.

That being said, your party likely has the equivalent of artillery - mages and such - blast them with a fireball to disorganize them, use your tank to run through and engage the strongest enemy, then pick the weakest most isolated target for the rest of your team to encircle and destroy. 

World War I breakout tactics translated into the game, it's not that boring is it?

[AngryFrozenWater]

[quote]SirOccam wrote...

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Who cares that being poor does not affect the story?[/quote]
*raises hand* Me. I do. That's...pretty much what I've been saying. If it doesn't affect the story, then being poor is not so much a story path as a burden on the player. And therefore there's no real reason (for me) to want to be poor.[/quote]
DA2 seems to be about the rise of Hawke to become one of the most important figures in history. You start off poor. It's how you as a character stand in the story. It does not affect the story, but it is a given in that story. You need an income only if you need some extra stuff. To me it's not a burden. I like to figure out how to make money. It may help Hawke on the way to become the most important figure in history. I am OK with that.

[quote]SirOccam wrote... opinion that you have.

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Why is that even important? What has that to do with making money in the game to obtain items you want? To me there is absolutely no relation required between the story and making money.

And you are wrong about the bow. Not that it matters, because you have failed to make the story requirement clear anyway.[/quote]
I don't know how many other ways I can explain it. The way story and making money are related in my argument is as follows:
1. I like buying things
2. I don't like most of my characters having to choose between being scavengers and being poor
3. If being poor were reflected in the story, then I would no longer mind it.
4. But it's not reflected in the story, and therefore I do mind it
5. I would like more alternatives to making money besides what's already there
6. If #5 is not going to happen, then I'd at least like looting to be less annoying.[/quote]
#1: You do like buying things. Erm. OK. Interesting.

#2: You don't like being poor and associate the solution for being poor with scavenging. I fail to see where the scavenging fixation comes from. I guess it is because you think that your primary income needs to come from looting from dead bodies.

#3: You keep telling me about your requirement of being poor has to be reflected in stories, but fail to provide a reason.

#4: See number 3.

#5: There are alternatives to looting from dead bodies. BioWare did a great job on that. I am sorry that you have to do something for those as well.

#6: You can jump up and down, but number 5 has been taken care of. And what you percieve as a primary income is just a click away. The automatic loot collector has not been invented yet.

These points were supposed to explain "the way story and making money are related in [your] argument".

#1 is your personal preference and does not shine much light on your promise to explain the relation between making money and the story. The same goes for #2. Again #3 (and #4) is a preference and no reason is given why being poor has to be reflected in the story. In #5 yet another preference. #6 still has nothing to do with your promise to explain this mystery.

[quote]SirOccam wrote...

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...

[quote]SirOccam wrote...

Yes I do love RPGs. I love being able to make decisions and take actions and watch as they affect the world around me. Looting corpse after corpse for junk loot to haul off to a vendor doesn't do that for me. Neither does having a tunic with one more point of dexterity on it.

It's clear to see you are way more entertained by some parts of RPGs than I am. I find the story the most compelling part of RPGs, and inventory management probably the least compelling. Everything else falls somewhere in between. I don't find stat allocation all that thrilling either, nor delving into too much of the nitty-gritty details about gear upgrades and spell effects or many of the other aspects of the "mechanics" side of things. (BEFORE ANYONE FLIPS OUT: please note that I am in no way saying these things should be taken out.)

So we enjoy different parts of RPGs to different extents...there's nothing wrong with that. I never suggested looting should be done away with.[/quote]
There is something very wrong with that. The part of the gameplay that you don't like needs to be nerfed only because you don't like that optional part of the game. If you don't like to play that part of the game then that's fine. But people who like that part of the game should not be punished because of your laziness.[/quote]
Excuse me, but no I am not lazy. I tried putting this as simply as I could, but you either can't understand or you refuse to. It is an optional part of the game, but only in the sense that you can willingly give up one of the main sources of revenue in the game. It is not optional in that there is something there to replace it. Before you bring up quests, that is not a replacement, that supplements it. Together, looting and quests provide all your income. Restricting yourselves to quests only just means you make less money. You can't choose a different path to make the same amount of money.[/quote]
You did not try to make it clear. You provide personal rules instead. Like in: "If being poor were reflected in the story, then I would no longer mind it." That seems to be the best you can come up with.

You are dictating your requirement as a rule for reasons unknown.

About laziness: The fact is that looting a body or opening a chest is a click away. Here is a list of side quests. A lot of those include no enemies, some only a few, but rarely more than half a dozen. Not all of them drop loot. I never counted it, but I guess about half of them do. Let's say that half a dozen enemies is an average for the quests in that list. If so then you need to click 3 times on a lootable body during a quest. And maybe click on a chest once or twice. Sure there are random encounters during traveling with a dozen or more enemies, but these are rare. Epic battles with even more enemies are rare too. And again not all of them drop loot. So yes. I do think you are lazy. Let's hope your health insurance covers RSI caused by all those extra clicks.

[quote]SirOccam wrote...

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...

[quote]SirOccam wrote...

What do you mean "this time?" In NONE of these examples has it mattered whether you are rich or poor. That's been my point all along. If you disagree, then please tell me how not saving the Smithy's daughter because you're poor turns out differently from not saving the Smithy's daughter because you are just a greedy bastard.

And I don't understand why your advice would be not to loot anything. Like I said, that would severely cripple my character's finances because looting is probably the main revenue stream in DAO. And here's where my point comes in: having crippled finances is a burden on ME, the player, and not on my character. In other words, it's just annoying and not compelling because it doesn't offer any kind of unique experience. Anything I can do "because I'm poor" I can still do if I have tons of money.[/quote]
You absolutely do not make any sense. Why would being rich or being poor have to be a requirement for the outcome of said quest or even be related to the quest. The quest was not designed that way. It escapes me why this is a problem for you. And of course... You don't need to loot everything. There are alternatives to make money.[/quote]
Well you're the one who brought up the Smithy's daughter quest in the first place, so you tell me why it should be related. I'm not even sure why it was mentioned at all. I think it was back when you were thinking I was saying money is not part of the game or whatever that was.[/quote]
I gave the smithy as an example of a story driven merchant in a post about how I feel making money and trading can affect stories and how I plan accordingly. The outcome of his quests simply determines what is for sale. You lifted it out of the discussion and now you don't even know what the context was. That's not my problem. There is no need to prove that being poor has to be connected to this quest. Only you require that. Again, for reasons unknown.

[quote]SirOccam wrote...

If you like, however, use a different example. Like the Rogek quest. Explain to me how blackmailing Rogek turns out differently if your motivation is that you're poor. Compared to doing it because you're greedy, or you hate dwarves, or whatever else. The answer is that it doesn't change it at all. And that's why I've been saying being poor isn't part of the story.[/quote]
The original example was mentioned in the same post as the Rogek one. In this case it had to do with the order of the story. That was its only significance. Nothing more, nothing less. I am certainly not interested in more of your word games about examples taken out of its context.

[quote]SirOccam wrote...

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...

[quote]SirOccam wrote...

Wrong. How does my suggestion result in more money? It's simple math here, honestly.

Let's say in DAO you loot x corpses, which each have an average value (based on coin and the sale value of any loot) of y. That results in a total monetary income of xy.

In my suggestion, there would be (x/20) lootable corpses, and the value obtainable from each would be (y*20). Monetary income, then, is (x/20)(y*20). Which is the same as xy. Which is the same as it is now. (And bear in mind that the "20" is just a random example number. It could be anything, as long as the same number is applied to both numbers.)

If the "effort" is so entertaining for you, then would you be in favor of more effort? Should you now have to search out certain merchants to sell certain goods? Surely  a barkeep or tavern owner shouldn't have any reason to purchase your bulk Darkspawn Daggers. How about give them a "satiation" limit, where they only have a finite amount of money for buying your stuff? Doesn't that mean more effort required, therefore making the game more fun? Do you honestly think any of those things would make the story more compelling?[/quote]
Because it does not make any sense. The items you'll find would be 20 times more expensive. How about potions and poisons you'll find in loot? And arrows? Bolts? Traps? Etc. Should their price be raised as well? And what if you need to buy them? Will they be 20 times more expensive too? You would never be able to find any low tier shields, armor and weapons. Isn't that obvious?[/quote]
Why would buying items be 20 times more expensive? I never said that. If you did that then the equation would no longer be equal.[/quote]
That only works if the number of items in the resulting lootable bodies remains the same. That solution doesn't solve the clutter. I initially thought that this was part of your solution. I was set on the wrong foot, because you mentioned value only. My bad. As mentioned elsewhere in this post such a change is a bit odd considering that there aren't much situations which benefit from it.
[quote]SirOccam wrote...

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Adding an artificial limit to merchants does not solve anything. Why collect stuff if you cannot sell it. Think, man. It does not compute.[/quote]
And what does having the current rate of item drops solve, that reducing that number would now no longer be a solution? And you would be able to sell it, just not all to the same vendor. It would add realism, and increase the effort you have to go to. Since "effort" is always such a good thing in your eyes, surely you'd see this as a positive change.

And one small note here, since you mentioned traps. I also didn't like traps. I didn't like making them, and I didn't like using them. So you know why I am not calling for any changes to the trap system? Because choosing not to use them did not significantly hamper my gameplay. That is a truly optional system right there. Choosing to skip looting, on the other hand, comes with a huge price that you have to pay.[/quote]
Don't try to switch things around. You feel that you need to click too much. You tell me that this annoys you. To me that means that it is too much effort for you. It has nothing to do with me.

And about realism. This is realism: Every dead body drops what it really owns. So a soldier drops full armor, weapons, and any other possession, including money and letters to his grandma and a picture of his dog. You would only be able to loot what you could carry based on the actual weight and using the local gravity. Dragon Age is not a intended as a full blown Microsoft Blight Simulator. The loot, inventory and merchants have been reduce to simple game mechanics. That's enough for me.

You don't like traps. Ah. Interesting. Thanks. BTW: I don't like crossbows. I never use them. I love selling them and their bolts, though.

There is no huge price to pay if you skip looting. There is not much you really have to buy. On the other hand anything you want to buy costs money. There are a number of ways to get that money. You favorite method seems to be looting bodies which requires a click once in a while, which somehow annoys you.

[quote]SirOccam wrote...

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...

At the start of the game finding low level gear is used to equip my henchmen. Later better gear appears and bit by bit they'll get better stuff. And most of that is found on corpses or in chests and often related to quests. Then there are those expensive ones you can buy, but you don't really need. They are a bit of an extra. For that you have to put in some effort. Nothing is for free..

There is not much "effort" required. You just loot corpses and open chests. It's a click away. If you don't want that then do the quests which will get you either free great gear or lots of money. If you think you spend too much money then create your own potions and poisons. You can steal if you like. But that's exactly what you don't want to do. For you it's too much effort. I don't see it as an effort at all.[/quote]
Of course you see it as effort; that's why you've been calling it "effort" this whole time. You keep making and abandoning new arguments as they are shown to be either irrelevant or just plain incorrect.

Then some keep rearing their heads, like this assumption that I just want "lots of money" or that I have some aversion to engaging in any kind of commerce. I don't want to be rewarded for nothing. What I want is the option to do something more interesting than rifling through the belongings of the people I've just killed for stuff to haul to the nearest vendor, and I'd rather be rewarded for THAT.

I never argued that looting a corpse was physically taxing or anything. It's just BORING. Do you understand that? Can you comprehend the difference? I DON'T LIKE DOING IT. I'd rather make money by doing things I DO like to do.[/quote]
Ah. You missed the quotes around the word "effort".
[quote]Wikipedia wrote....

Writers use scare quotes for a variety of reasons. When the enclosed text is a quotation from another source, scare quotes may indicate that the writer does not accept the usage of the phrase (or the phrase itself), that the writer feels its use is potentially ironic, or that the writer feels it is a misnomer. This meaning may serve to distance the writer from the quoted content.

If scare quotes are enclosing a word or phrase that does not represent a quotation from another source they may simply serve to alert the reader that the word or phrase is used in an unusual, special, or non-standard way or should be understood to include caveats to the conventional meaning.

Alternatively, material in scare quotes may represent the writer's concise (but possibly misleading) paraphrasing, characterization, or intentional misrepresentation of statements, concepts, or terms used by a third party. This may be an expression of sarcasm or incredulity, or it may also represent a rhetorical attempt to frame a discussion in the writer's desired (non-standard) terms (e.g. a circumlocution, an apophasis, or an innuendo).[/quote]
Yes. It is clear that you don't like the "effort".

[quote]SirOccam wrote...

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...

And looting corpses is really optional. At the end of the game I usually have money left. So, I spend it on tomes, or buy stuff for my armies which will give me extra experience points, or just simply save it for when I need to buy some standard stuff when I need to switch to a DLC which rips off any DLC-items the PC and henchmen use. If the inventory "problem" is that severe as you perceive it is then don't loot. Or loot less. You can obtain lots of money by other means.[/quote]
It's optional in the sense that it's possible not to do it, but it's less of an option than the trap example is. You can't just do quests "instead," because quests and looting are both part of how you make money.

Maybe this analogy will illustrate my point. Let's say you are given a wardrobe, but it only has sweaters for tops. No t-shirts, no collared shirts, no hoodies, etc. Let's say you don't like wearing sweaters. Maybe you think they're uncomfortable, maybe it's the middle of summer, maybe you just don't like the look. You point this out and someone responds by saying "you don't HAVE to wear a sweater." You respond by saying you don't like going shirtless either, and that you wish there was something else you could wear. Then they helpfully reply that you can wear pants "instead." Well that's not really a replacement, now is it? You were already going to wear pants.[/quote]
If getting your sweater requires you to take the stairs then you start complaining. In that case, look for the T-shirt.

But whether you like it or not, you can make more money in the game than you need. That means looting is truly optional. And if you hate clicking the mouse a few times in a quest and feel it is too much effort then skip it.

[quote]SirOccam wrote...

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I wave away your irrational story requirement argument. It doesn't make any sense for reasons mentioned at the top. But maybe you can shine some light on that. About your proposal: You are not adding anything to the game, because your proposals don't make any sense either. I've written about that above.[/quote]
Wow, that must come in handy. You can just "wave away" people's arguments if you don't like them or can't understand them. I'm sure that's much easier than thinking about them.

The reason it doesn't make sense to you is because you apparently can't understand it. I never said "making money" had to be related to the story. I only said that because "being poor" was not related to the story, being so has no allure for me.

My proposal WOULD be adding something to the game, because it would not remove looting and it would be providing other, additional means. That way there would be alternatives. I gave some of Fable II's methods as examples. Buying and selling property, investing in businesses, etc. If I could do something like that instead of looting, I would gladly do so.[/quote]
I again wave away your story requirement, because I cannot take something into account that is not explained well. I posted somewhere at the top about this. It has to do with a rule that you are trying to impose on us and there is no reason given behind that rule. That does not make sense.

Your propasal has been discussed above.

[quote]SirOccam wrote...

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...

[quote]SirOccam wrote...

And I'm not asking you to give up the "fun" of looting corpse after corpse. And I'm not saying I don't think effort should be required. I'm not asking for an easy button. But here's the thing: I don't think "effort" is always a good thing. There is effort that is compelling, and effort that is tedious. Looting corpses is not compelling. Fighting across the bridge in the Deep Roads when you meet the Legion of the Dead is compelling. Running back and forth to vendors is not compelling. Completing quests is compelling.

Let's apply it to real life for a second. Paperwork is generally not compelling. Cutting down on paperwork is efficient; it doesn't mean you're lazy. There is plenty of work that IS compelling.

Is any of this making sense?[/quote]
You really amaze me. I keep telling you that there are alternatives. I went into detail about that and all you can think of is looting corpses. These alternatives can be a large part of your income. The fun I have is with the combined package of methods to obtain money. How many times do I need to say that I loved the way BioWare designed those? Now, go play the game and use them. Enjoy. [/quote]
You don't need to say it at all. I never once questioned it.

But you're telling me there are alternatives when there's really just "the rest." That other stuff was already part of the game, and I was already doing those. I haven't been skipping side quests in favor of just looting.[/quote]
What you call "rest" is a well thought out package created by BioWare. These did a great job. Use it to your advantage. You'll make more money than you need. If you still think that looting is required for your main income then try harder or move you mouse a bit and click on a body. It's not hard. Simplifying the system even more for situations that are merely exceptions and rarely occur is useless.

[Sylvius the Mad]

tmp7704 wrote...

If it's outdoors the chances of finding funnels wide just enough for one person to fit that can't be otherwise navigated around is pretty slim.

Bigger parties.  Magical barriers.

[AllThatJazz]

SirOccam wrote...

AllThatJazz wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

AllThatJazz wrote...

Plus, why does everything have to 'progress events' or be about the story? Can't some things just ... be? I mean, a vast majority of NPCs in the world have nothing to do with quests, or the plot or anything - they're just there for a bit of flavour and atmosphere. To extend that - romances, sidequests, party banter, the ability to choose the PC's hairstyle - none of this stuff progresses the main story, and yet the game would be the lesser without these things. 'Tis similar, for me (though admittedly to a lesser extent), with looting and inventory. Part of the charm of a game like Origins is that just occasionally, an enemy might drop something interesting etc.

I never said that everything has to progress events or be part of the storyline. I, too, enjoy looking at the scenery and customizing my characters' appearance, hairstyle and all.

But here's the thing...if someone didn't like those, they are free to ignore the scenery and just go with whatever default appearance shows up. They are not punished in any way for doing so. I can skip looting, but I am punished for doing so.

And anyway, I would disagree that romances and sidequests don't progress the story. Maybe not the "main story," but then, I don't know why it was ever called the "main story" in the first place. I've only ever been referring to "story" in general, be it crucial to the plot of the game or not so crucial.

I used the word 'main' once, actually in response to someone else's post. Apologies. Nonetheless, it's just about choices isn't it? As I've already posted, I'm currently playing a game of Fallout 3 as a pure survivalist (which is my absolute favourite type of character to play) - I don't buy anything, from a single merchant. The only things I use are the things that I find on my travels. I've done similar in Origins (though usually can't resist Wade).

Choosing not to use merchants means that I don't have access to crafting (until Golems of Amgarrak), and I don't have access to loads of really good weapons and armour, and there are even item sets I'm unable to complete. So I'm, effectively, punished for choosing to ignore those things about the game that could make my character more powerful. But that's up to me. Why should these things about the game be changed to accommodate my playing preferences when plenty of others enjoy them just as they are?

But if you find that your enjoyment of the survivalist playstyle outweighs the penalties it incurs, then what's the problem? I don't even know how the game could be changed to support that better. It seems like enduring the penalties is sort of the whole point of playing like that.

I really am confused by all the outrage over this simple suggestion. I'm not asking for anything drastic. The amount of loot is not a binary value...it's not just off or on. I used a factor of 20 as an example, but it doesn't have to be that big. What if they reduced the drop rate to, say, 80% of what it currently is in Origins? Would that really be so game-breakingly bad? Be honest.

What is it about Origins' drop rate that is so perfect? Or perhaps you think there should be even more loot? I think the objections here are less about the system being objectively good as it is in Origins and more about slippery slope fallacies and jumping to conclusions.

Let's not forget that this all just started from a simple observation that it is a little strange that looting corpses is such an integral part of RPGs, yet you rarely hear about it in other stories. Can you not at least admit that it is...I don't know, noticeable? Maybe even a little odd? It seems like so many people here simply can't cope with the idea of looking at these things we take for granted and asking why they are how they are. Like it's blasphemous to do so. Reminds me of the Catholic Church reacting to Galileo. "How DARE you question our precious RPG gospel?"

I mean, fine, discard the entire idea if you want; I don't care. I'm not married to it. It was just a spur-of-the-moment thing I came up with. I do dislike the amount of junk loot juggling in Origins, but overall I just think there are a lot of weird things in RPGs.

• Like tanking...what's up with that? An entire system of battle based on slinging insults?
• Corpse scavenging, as we've been over. It's become a standard, yet you hardly see it happen in stories outside RPGs. Why?
• Why do people almost never care that you walk into their house without permission and search through their belongings for anything of value?
• What does it mean to wear a ring that has +3 dexterity? How does a character look at two rings and decide that one is going to contribute to his survival slightly better than the other?

Heresy, I know. I'm not saying these things are all unacceptable, nor that none of them have good reasons for being as they are. But I do think many of them came from pen and paper RPGs, and the good reasons for them being THERE may not apply any longer. Do they all have to be the way they are? Why?

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Blimey O'Riley! I'm not outraged. I rarely get outraged about anything, let alone a loot system in a computer game. I guess I feel similarly to you, just on the opposite side of the fence. You don't like the system because you feel it lessens your enjoyment of a game you otherwise really like. I feel it enhances my enjoyment, albeit possibly in a slightly abstract way. Like you say, it's really no big deal. But because I have a different view to yours, I choose to argue it.  Very opinionated woman, who'da thunk?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            I play games with loads of different loot/inventory systems and enjoy them well enough. I might get pangs of nostalgia for rifling through someone's pockets during a ME1/2 runthrough but it isn't exactly a deal breaker. One of my favourite recent mods for NWN2 was The Maimed Gods' Saga - very few loot drops (and nothing of outstanding quality), the merchants only sold crap, and of the three magical items throughout the game, one was very minor and two were only acquired towards the end of the mod. I loved it! The system was balanced, and the economy of the world (as the author presented it) was such that it made perfect sense. It's when we start getting into 'well, x could be worth 20 times as much, so we can have 20 times less of it' etc (and all the various to and fros going on on in this thread), that it just starts to get ... messy. Loot, sell, buy. Maybe it's not pretty for everyone, but it sure is simple.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        I agree about the nicking stuff from people's houses, btw. I tend to avoid it in games - but on the rare occasion that I do it and am told to ****** off by the homeowner, I'm ecstatic.x

[Sidney]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The taunting mechanic wouldn't be necessary if we could just get in our enemies' way.

If you could block doorways so monsters couldn't get past you, that would be sufficient to hold the attention of your foes.  They simply wouldn't have another available target.

Modern tanking is a by-product of a lack of collision detection.

That's an advancement I'd actually like to see.  Let us stand our ground and hold position - the game could even use something like DAO's physical resistance scores to determine how good at it we'd be.

As for archers and mages who can attack at range, that's what armour and dodging and abjuration magic are for.

Well collision detection and a lack of "engagement". It is utterly maddening to have a warrior in the middle of a not wide hall and just watch everyone and their dog run around him. The game should at least force someone to engage the tank so that others can just slide by him - sort of back to the old zones of control idea.

Aggro as a whole is a nice try at "helping" the AI but the effect doesn't work. Warriors can't draw aggro w/o burning up their limited stamina because in almost every fight the ranged classes engage first and thus cause the most damage which means they draw the higher aggo and then become targets that the tanks can't stop people from assaulting.

[Sidney]

tmp7704 wrote...
If it's outdoors the chances of finding funnels wide just enough for one person to fit that can't be otherwise navigated around is pretty slim. It can easily lead to absurd designs like in ME2 where you could instantly tell in advance a fight is about to break out... because the area was littered with convenient pieces high just enough to provide cover.

There's not always a fatal funnel BUT your warriors should be able to provide some sort of screen to your party. It might be a meadow but your warrios should be able to provide front cover for the mages. As it is now they really don't because enemies will largely ignore them and run around them. In real life the punishment for running by the grunt to kill the general is you get stabbed in the side or back as you go by and you die. Games with hit points don't have to deal with "death" as a by product of bad decisions like that so the AI makes that move.