Any chance of seeing this released in a modular format so people can install Fixpack without some of the more questionable fixes? Something along the lines of the G3 Fixpack is what I'm talking about, with a "Core Fixes" component that squashes the indisputable bugs, and another, completely customizable, component with all the controversial content.
Modular release?
Started by Caffiend, Jul 28 2009 06:38 AM
37 replies to this topic
#3
Caffiend
-
- Member
- 13 posts
Posted 28 July 2009 - 07:30 AM
Examples off the top of my head are the changes made to Dak'kon's Zerth Blade, the strength increase fix in the next version, the changes to spell casting time (You know, the ones that change the speeds from what's listed in the manual and in some cases even change the spell's description to match the new values). Some of these fixes strike me as being not so much fixes as attempts to balance the game, which I feel are somewhat beyond the scope of a fixpack.
#4
Qwinn
-
- Modder
-
- 3092 posts
Posted 28 July 2009 - 07:36 AM
I appreciate the details. Thank you.
I can see this one. Note that as a result of issues raise, I've rolled back -some- of the changes... however, I'm still not thrilled about basically seriously nerfing everyone who actually likes to glean all the content and help Dak'kon through the Circle, cause that's what not changing the blades amounts to. I can see making this modular, though. Let me think about it.
The Maximized Strength Spell tweak is going into the Tweak Pack, it won't be part of the Fixpack. If you mean the fix where the various methods of increasing strength will henceforth be consistent, such that getting a point of strength in dialogue is no longer equivalent to increasing strength on the levelup screen 6 times, and all 3 spells increase it differently (one by 10% each, etc.) well... what's the argument that that was likely intended? That's not intended to balance, its intended to fix inconsistencies. Exploitable inconsistencies.
Wow, I never thought that was controversial. The only fixes I ever made were to those where the game gives us two values - one in the description, and the other in the spell itself. I never made a change to any where those two values agreed. I can't see how one can argue that the two -should- have been left inconsistent with one another. The description should accurately describe what you're going to get when you cast the spell, no?
Kung Fu Man in his restoration pack assumed that the description was always right, and fixed the spells to match. In most cases I decided otherwise, that the spell was actually correct and the description was wrong, unless I had a compelling reason to believe otherwise (such as all Power Word spells traditionally having a 1 casting time). This is because almost all spells where the description matched the actual casting time had a consistent pattern: casting time = level of spell. The values in the mismatched spells agreed with that, and the descriptions didn't.
But there were no "new" values imposed by me. In every spell where I changed the description, the casting time was the -actual- casting time of the spell in the vanilla game as shipped, and I was correcting the description to match it. If I ever changed the actual casting time of the spell, it was to make it match the description, in those few cases where the description made more sense. (Trust me, I wish the descriptions had always been right, fixing the spell itself is -way- easier... that doesn't require translating, for one).
Qwinn
Examples off the top of my head are the changes made to Dak'kon's Zerth Blade,
I can see this one. Note that as a result of issues raise, I've rolled back -some- of the changes... however, I'm still not thrilled about basically seriously nerfing everyone who actually likes to glean all the content and help Dak'kon through the Circle, cause that's what not changing the blades amounts to. I can see making this modular, though. Let me think about it.
the strength increase fix in the next version,
The Maximized Strength Spell tweak is going into the Tweak Pack, it won't be part of the Fixpack. If you mean the fix where the various methods of increasing strength will henceforth be consistent, such that getting a point of strength in dialogue is no longer equivalent to increasing strength on the levelup screen 6 times, and all 3 spells increase it differently (one by 10% each, etc.) well... what's the argument that that was likely intended? That's not intended to balance, its intended to fix inconsistencies. Exploitable inconsistencies.
the changes to spell casting time (You know, the ones that change the speeds from what's listed in the manual and in some cases even change the spell's description to match the new values).
Wow, I never thought that was controversial. The only fixes I ever made were to those where the game gives us two values - one in the description, and the other in the spell itself. I never made a change to any where those two values agreed. I can't see how one can argue that the two -should- have been left inconsistent with one another. The description should accurately describe what you're going to get when you cast the spell, no?
Kung Fu Man in his restoration pack assumed that the description was always right, and fixed the spells to match. In most cases I decided otherwise, that the spell was actually correct and the description was wrong, unless I had a compelling reason to believe otherwise (such as all Power Word spells traditionally having a 1 casting time). This is because almost all spells where the description matched the actual casting time had a consistent pattern: casting time = level of spell. The values in the mismatched spells agreed with that, and the descriptions didn't.
But there were no "new" values imposed by me. In every spell where I changed the description, the casting time was the -actual- casting time of the spell in the vanilla game as shipped, and I was correcting the description to match it. If I ever changed the actual casting time of the spell, it was to make it match the description, in those few cases where the description made more sense. (Trust me, I wish the descriptions had always been right, fixing the spell itself is -way- easier... that doesn't require translating, for one).
Qwinn
Edited by Qwinn, 28 July 2009 - 08:16 AM.
#5
Caffiend
-
- Member
- 13 posts
Posted 28 July 2009 - 08:17 AM
But there were no "new" values imposed by me. In every spell where I changed the description, the casting time was the -actual- casting time of the spell in the vanilla game as shipped, and I was correcting the description to match it.
I may have misread the material in that case. The wording implied that spell casting time values had been changed from the default values to equal the spell level in question regardless of in game description.
If you mean the fix where the various methods of increasing strength will henceforth be consistent, such that getting a point of strength in dialogue is no longer equivalent to increasing strength on the levelup screen 6 times, and all 3 spells increase it differently (one by 10% each, etc.) well... what's the argument that that was likely intended? That's not intended to balance, its intended to fix inconsistencies. Exploitable inconsistencies.
There's no compelling argument either for or against the fix that I'm aware of aside from one of balance. If anything is inconsistent, it would be the way it's handled in level up, since that's the only time the exceptional strength is even an issue.
My belief is that a fixpack shouldn't be the video game police, at least not by default. Granted, I might feel otherwise if the game was a hack 'n' slash challenge game, but it's not. Combat in Torment is purely incidental. Ultimately the decision is yours, of course, since you're doing the work. I just prefer options.
#6
Qwinn
-
- Modder
-
- 3092 posts
Posted 28 July 2009 - 08:41 AM
I may have misread the material in that case. The wording implied that spell casting time values had been changed from the default values to equal the spell level in question regardless of in game description.
No no - the casting time = level pattern was only considered when there was a discrepancy between the actual casting time and the description. In cases where they agreed and didn't match that pattern, I didn't touch 'em. The Aid spell is an example, level 2 but casting speed remains 1. And in a few cases, such as the aforementioned Power Word spells, I judged the description (For PW: Blind, description casting speed = 1) as more likely to match intent than the actual spell (casting speed = 8 ). The casting speed = level thing only ruled when A) there was a discrepancy, B) either the description or the spell casting speed equaled spell level, and C) there was nothing else to go on when trying to determine intent.
There's no compelling argument either for or against the fix that I'm aware of aside from one of balance. If anything is inconsistent, it would be the way it's handled in level up, since that's the only time the exceptional strength is even an issue.
They also matter in the spells, all of which traverse the exceptional strength tree, but all 3 doing so in different ways that often don't match the spell description.
If the balance issue you're referring to is that, as the game exists, the exceptional strength tree is effectively a -penalty- to fighters rather than the bonus it is supposed to be and is in every other D&D game ever made, well, yes. And that's a pretty compelling reason to consider it unintended, I'd say.
I don't mind the argument you're making at all, please seriously, have a go at it in the existing thread where I explain my reasons and all the issues are laid out, with posters both supporting and against:
http://www.shsforums...showtopic=38533
Combat in Torment is purely incidental.
A lot of people say this, and this is probably the point where I have the most disagreement. That may be the actual result of the game as shipped, IMO -because- of the bugs I'm fixing, but it was most definitely not the intent. The combat in PS:T was always intended to be meaningful. Hell, in one interview MCA says this:
CHRIS: Yep. I don't know if many people who played it had the same immersion experience you did - a number of people who played could not get past the Mortuary because it was so heavy on dialogue and not much to DO, gameplay-wise. I think it gets easier when it gets out to the Hive and suddenly the RPG elements become more open - there's a ton of little quests you can do fast and quick in any order to get more numbers. But even then, we had to stage some fights in there to break it up along with some mini-dungeons - and since then (Targos in Icewind Dale 2), I've tried to include a lot more combat at the beginning to break up the talking.
That does not sound to me like combat was intended to be incidental. And this is not the only basis for me thinking that PS:T's combat was intended to be every bit as good and challenging as, say, BG2's was. But for a lot of reasons, some of which are utterly inexplicable and I fix (such as even the ravening hordes of hell being slower than your leisure walking speed), yes, combat in PS:T turned out to be the worst of all the IE games. Some may consider this a virtue, because they may not -like- IE combat even when they got it right, but that clearly wasn't the intent. My desire is to make the game as it was intended. That doesn't mean I just change whatever I feel like in terms of balance, but if an in-game situation is inconsistent and nonsensical on its own terms, then yes, I do consider that an opportunity to fix the balance issues that make everyone think PS:T combat was never meant to be, you know, fun.
Qwinn
Edited by Qwinn, 28 July 2009 - 08:52 AM.
#7
Caffiend
-
- Member
- 13 posts
Posted 28 July 2009 - 09:08 AM
My argument about the combat in Torment wasn't a complaint, actually. I think of it as a welcome reprieve from the high-pressure of BG2 with it's dozens of tactical mods all designed to make combat harder. That said, having an immortal protagonist renders combat in an incidental light no matter what the mechanics are, so adjusting the mechanics serves little actual purpose as I see it.
Again, I'm not standing on a soapbox telling you what you've done is wrong. My whole purpose with this topic was to ask for options. Not everyone is going to be interested in the game play changes, you've acknowledged that, but as it stands there aren't really any other viable alternatives to your fix pack. That means people either have to live with the bugs, accept fixes they don't like/want, or spent tedious hours commenting out the changes they don't agree with.
Again, I'm not standing on a soapbox telling you what you've done is wrong. My whole purpose with this topic was to ask for options. Not everyone is going to be interested in the game play changes, you've acknowledged that, but as it stands there aren't really any other viable alternatives to your fix pack. That means people either have to live with the bugs, accept fixes they don't like/want, or spent tedious hours commenting out the changes they don't agree with.
#8
Qwinn
-
- Modder
-
- 3092 posts
Posted 28 July 2009 - 10:30 AM
No worries, I'm not feeling defensive, I am defending my decisions but I don't take it as a personal attack or anything 
I have considered doing an "Optional but Cool" component myself, actually. One reason for my resistance is because it's a good deal of additional work to set up, including requiring me to find people willing to translate all the new options for the installers, etc., and because in at least some cases it's going to mean hairier debugging of problems since each new optional component effectively exponentially increases the number of different possible installs. (I remember seeing such problems created in the G3 forums, where a problem only arose if you installed some optional components but not others... that sort of thing is pretty much inevitable). As it is, I've got exactly one base install to maintain as far as the Fixpack goes, which is much easier to deal with. Something like the Dak'kon sword changes is pretty self-encapsulated and isn't likely to collide with other things, but other possible optional components won't be so module-friendly.
Aside from that, though, I do emotionally resist the inevitable desire some people will have to make it easy to leave in "good" bugs. You know, the bugs that are exploitable and serve to munchkin-ize the game, or just leave it really easy. To me, a bug is a bug, whether it make the player more powerful or less. There will always be people who want only bugs that makes them less powerful to be fixed - if playing MMO's for years taught me anything, it taught me that. I don't subscribe to that. I know that will make some people consider me the "RPG police", but honestly, the purpose of the mods to me isn't to make it easier for people to continue to exploit bugs, and I don't feel compelled to put in additional work to make it easy for them to continue to exploit 'em.
Arguments that something I do may not have been intended, I'm willing to accept as good reason for me to make the additional effort to make these components optional and to maintain the multiplicity of installs that such modularization creates. But there's going to be people who luv them their overpowered kensai-mage TNO's that because of bugs are so overpowered compared to anything else that it becomes the only build really worth playing, and playing anything else feels like deliberately nerfing oneself and thus not really very fun, and I'm simply not inclined to put myself out to cater to that sentiment. If that means that they have to go through my files and undo the changes they don't like, instead of -me- having to go through them and modularize them so their desire to exploit bugs remains convenient, well............... I can live with that.
Convince me that it's not a bug, and I'll go through the trouble. But as long as it seems to me that the main reason for the request to make something optional is that the bug is considered a positive because it unbalances the game in the player's favor (thus making combat "incidental" and all that), I probably won't be persuaded to go through the trouble.
I don't mean to attack your request - I think so far you've argued in good faith, and I don't see the desire to be a munchkin as your only driving force. If it were, I don't think you'd have cared about the casting speed fixes. But, you clearly do want the combat to remain as easy as possible, it's not something you want in this game. But it was that easy only because of bugs. That wasn't the intent of the designers. You're asking me to go through a bunch of trouble for myself to make it convenient to leave it unbalanced in the player's favor, making more work for myself in the process. I'm gonna have to say, nah. Nothing about exploiting bugs or people's motives for wanting to do so appeals to me enough to go out of my way to support. Sorry.
To make a long story short (I know, too late):
Arguments from a purist standpoint = convincing.
Arguments from "but I don't like combat and any bug that makes combat trivial, I wanna keep" = not convincing.
I disagree. I think it's bleah to have everyone tell you, repeatedly, about how dangerous the Tenement of Thugs is, only to find that you can just run straight through the place in 3 seconds with no challenge whatsoever. Same with being warned about how horrible hell is, only to find out you can leisurely walk through it. That make the dialogue seem, well, just fourth-wall-breakingly dumb. Rather kills the dramatic effect. Post-fix, the fact that you're immortal doesn't really help you get through the Tenement of Thugs if you go about it stupidly. Well, if you kill one guy in the big mob of thugs at a time per death until you've barreled through, sure, but that will significantly increase the difficulty at the end of the game when you're alone in the fortress, and when you actually have a limited number of lives left. So, yeah, it does still matter - not as much as in other games, perhaps, but it does matter, both in real terms and in making all the dialogues about the dangers of the Planes no longer simpleminded.
All that said, I think that even with every single fix, proposed or existing, PS:T remains a relatively simple game as far as combat goes. My fixes only take it from "absurdly, trivially easy" to "easy". This ain't Tactics nor does it want to be, this is just fixing the really stupid crap.
Qwinn
I have considered doing an "Optional but Cool" component myself, actually. One reason for my resistance is because it's a good deal of additional work to set up, including requiring me to find people willing to translate all the new options for the installers, etc., and because in at least some cases it's going to mean hairier debugging of problems since each new optional component effectively exponentially increases the number of different possible installs. (I remember seeing such problems created in the G3 forums, where a problem only arose if you installed some optional components but not others... that sort of thing is pretty much inevitable). As it is, I've got exactly one base install to maintain as far as the Fixpack goes, which is much easier to deal with. Something like the Dak'kon sword changes is pretty self-encapsulated and isn't likely to collide with other things, but other possible optional components won't be so module-friendly.
Aside from that, though, I do emotionally resist the inevitable desire some people will have to make it easy to leave in "good" bugs. You know, the bugs that are exploitable and serve to munchkin-ize the game, or just leave it really easy. To me, a bug is a bug, whether it make the player more powerful or less. There will always be people who want only bugs that makes them less powerful to be fixed - if playing MMO's for years taught me anything, it taught me that. I don't subscribe to that. I know that will make some people consider me the "RPG police", but honestly, the purpose of the mods to me isn't to make it easier for people to continue to exploit bugs, and I don't feel compelled to put in additional work to make it easy for them to continue to exploit 'em.
Arguments that something I do may not have been intended, I'm willing to accept as good reason for me to make the additional effort to make these components optional and to maintain the multiplicity of installs that such modularization creates. But there's going to be people who luv them their overpowered kensai-mage TNO's that because of bugs are so overpowered compared to anything else that it becomes the only build really worth playing, and playing anything else feels like deliberately nerfing oneself and thus not really very fun, and I'm simply not inclined to put myself out to cater to that sentiment. If that means that they have to go through my files and undo the changes they don't like, instead of -me- having to go through them and modularize them so their desire to exploit bugs remains convenient, well............... I can live with that.
Convince me that it's not a bug, and I'll go through the trouble. But as long as it seems to me that the main reason for the request to make something optional is that the bug is considered a positive because it unbalances the game in the player's favor (thus making combat "incidental" and all that), I probably won't be persuaded to go through the trouble.
I don't mean to attack your request - I think so far you've argued in good faith, and I don't see the desire to be a munchkin as your only driving force. If it were, I don't think you'd have cared about the casting speed fixes. But, you clearly do want the combat to remain as easy as possible, it's not something you want in this game. But it was that easy only because of bugs. That wasn't the intent of the designers. You're asking me to go through a bunch of trouble for myself to make it convenient to leave it unbalanced in the player's favor, making more work for myself in the process. I'm gonna have to say, nah. Nothing about exploiting bugs or people's motives for wanting to do so appeals to me enough to go out of my way to support. Sorry.
To make a long story short (I know, too late):
Arguments from a purist standpoint = convincing.
Arguments from "but I don't like combat and any bug that makes combat trivial, I wanna keep" = not convincing.
That said, having an immortal protagonist renders combat in an incidental light no matter what the mechanics are, so adjusting the mechanics serves little actual purpose as I see it.
I disagree. I think it's bleah to have everyone tell you, repeatedly, about how dangerous the Tenement of Thugs is, only to find that you can just run straight through the place in 3 seconds with no challenge whatsoever. Same with being warned about how horrible hell is, only to find out you can leisurely walk through it. That make the dialogue seem, well, just fourth-wall-breakingly dumb. Rather kills the dramatic effect. Post-fix, the fact that you're immortal doesn't really help you get through the Tenement of Thugs if you go about it stupidly. Well, if you kill one guy in the big mob of thugs at a time per death until you've barreled through, sure, but that will significantly increase the difficulty at the end of the game when you're alone in the fortress, and when you actually have a limited number of lives left. So, yeah, it does still matter - not as much as in other games, perhaps, but it does matter, both in real terms and in making all the dialogues about the dangers of the Planes no longer simpleminded.
All that said, I think that even with every single fix, proposed or existing, PS:T remains a relatively simple game as far as combat goes. My fixes only take it from "absurdly, trivially easy" to "easy". This ain't Tactics nor does it want to be, this is just fixing the really stupid crap.
Qwinn
Edited by Qwinn, 28 July 2009 - 10:42 AM.
#9
Caffiend
-
- Member
- 13 posts
Posted 28 July 2009 - 12:01 PM
On what criterion do you judge whether something is or is not a bug? I agree, the fact that a mage can have a fighter's THAC0 is ridiculous, but the only evidence I'm aware of that this is unintended within the context of Torment itself are the core D&D rules -over which Torment runs roughshod regularly, adhering to them only when it's convenient. Defining exactly what constitutes a 'purist' argument seems somewhat difficult, since there really isn't a valid reference for what constitutes a purist experience aside from the (buggy) vanilla game itself. Your game play fixes seem to work with a mutable philosophy when it comes to what constitutes a bug, sometimes correcting proper D&D behavior (Nameless One receives 10hp on level up no matter what class) and enforcing them at others (THAC0 fix, etc) "Best guess of developer intent" and personal judgment calls as to what does or doesn't constitute a bug are what I'm seeing as being objectionable here.
As far as the MMO reference goes, I'm afraid I don't see it as being particularly applicable. After all, there will never come a time when the way I play the game on my home machine will impact your game on your machine, whereas such considerations are critical in an MMO.
As far as the MMO reference goes, I'm afraid I don't see it as being particularly applicable. After all, there will never come a time when the way I play the game on my home machine will impact your game on your machine, whereas such considerations are critical in an MMO.
Edited by Caffiend, 28 July 2009 - 12:01 PM.
#10
Qwinn
-
- Modder
-
- 3092 posts
Posted 28 July 2009 - 12:17 PM
On what criterion do you judge whether something is or is not a bug?
This can only be answered on a case by case basis. I regularly post walls of text attempting to explain why I go the way I go with that
If you do find that the choices I make in two different cases are internally inconsistent (as you did in the rest of your post), that's a fair argument, and I'll do my best to answer.I agree, the fact that a mage can have a fighter's THAC0 is ridiculous, but the only evidence I'm aware of that this is unintended within the context of Torment itself are the core D&D rules -over which Torment runs roughshod regularly, adhering to them only when it's convenient. Defining exactly what constitutes a 'purist' argument seems somewhat difficult, since there really isn't a valid reference for what constitutes a purist experience aside from the (buggy) vanilla game itself. Your game play fixes seem to work with a mutable philosophy when it comes to what constitutes a bug, sometimes correcting proper D&D behavior (Nameless One receives 10hp on level up no matter what class) and enforcing them at others (THAC0 fix, etc) "Best guess of developer intent" and personal judgment calls as to what does or doesn't constitute a bug are what I'm seeing as being objectionable here.
In those two particular cases, I had the good fortune to be able to get a response from Chris Avellone on the subjects. The 10 HP on levelup fix is supported by the game manual that states it explicitly, as well as MCA's confirmation that it was a bug. He did not state unequivocally that the THACO issue was a bug, but he acknowledged that the balance issues were legitimate and serious, and told me "I'll leave it up to you" on which way to go with it, which I take as explicitly granted authority to make the call on that one. He raised only one issue to support the way it exists, which is the notion that TNO could just forget how to fight based on switching classes, but when I pointed out that it's no stranger than forgetting how to -hide- when you switch from being a thief, his response was "Fair enough!".
Given the granted authority, and the fact that fixing the confirmed HP bug would exacerbate the extreme class imbalance caused by the THACO bug even further, and given that the way it stood conflicts greatly with all the class trainer dialogues where you are told "you must give up the way of the sword" when, really, you don't in any measurable way and in fact you become BETTER with the "way of the sword" when you switch to mage (due to better AC items), I made the call.
Qwinn
#11
Kung Fu Man
-
- Member
- 48 posts
Posted 28 July 2009 - 12:19 PM
If I might toss something in, if you do go with making some of the fixes optional can I request the resistance modification be amongst them? In another thread I noticed Scient comment that regarding changing resistance so that it would cap off at 100% or so forth to prevent the issue of characters being healed if it went over that value. Problem is I'm sorta...using this to some effect.
At the very least if I can get instruction on what to modify in the EXE to undo that change I could be good to go. That option would be easier anyway probably so I don't make more work for you guys with this request.
At the very least if I can get instruction on what to modify in the EXE to undo that change I could be good to go. That option would be easier anyway probably so I don't make more work for you guys with this request.
#12
Qwinn
-
- Modder
-
- 3092 posts
Posted 28 July 2009 - 12:32 PM
He hasn't actually done that fix yet, I don't think. I seem to recall him giving a reasonable justification for that being an unequivocal bug (meaning, more than just the simple illogic of it, possibly something he saw in the code itself), but I will confirm that. If there's nothing more to determine that it's a bug than the issue appears on its face, then actually I'd probably be inclined to go with whatever the G3 guys decided re: BG2, where I believe the same issue exists. If they made it optional, so shall I. Fair enough?
At any rate, pretty much everything in my mods is heavily documented with walls of text, so you shouldn't have any problems figuring out what to comment out should you seek to do so.
Qwinn
At any rate, pretty much everything in my mods is heavily documented with walls of text, so you shouldn't have any problems figuring out what to comment out should you seek to do so.
Qwinn
#13
Caffiend
-
- Member
- 13 posts
Posted 28 July 2009 - 12:37 PM
Convince me that it's not a bug, and I'll go through the trouble
He did not state unequivocally that the THACO issue was a bug, but he acknowledged that the balance issues were legitimate and serious
Legitimate and serious balance issue, yes. Bug, no.
#14
Qwinn
-
- Modder
-
- 3092 posts
Posted 28 July 2009 - 12:43 PM
Convince me that it's not a bug, and I'll go through the trouble
He did not state unequivocally that the THACO issue was a bug, but he acknowledged that the balance issues were legitimate and serious
Legitimate and serious balance issue, yes. Bug, no.
He didn't say that it was intended either. It's not like he'd thought about it in a good 10 years, and he may not even have ever been directly involved in any decision concerning the subject. He wasn't the only person working on it. I think when he said "I'll leave it up to you", he was saying that he'd leave it up to me to research the issue, look at the evidence in game, and determine if it was a bug, which I decided it was. I think that the class trainer dialogues are sufficient grounds to determine that the way it wound up was not intended, because as the game shipped, the whole "you must abandon the way of the sword" stuff was simply nonsense.
Qwinn
#15
Qwinn
-
- Modder
-
- 3092 posts
Posted 28 July 2009 - 12:55 PM
Oh yes, there was also this from the game manual:
That's a pretty bold declaration of intent, there. And note that when I brought up the subject with MCA, I didn't know about that bit, so I didn't get the chance to mention it as part of my reasoning for why I believed it to be a bug.
Qwinn
The Nameless one only gets experience in the class he is currently a member of - he switches classes by talking to people in the game. Furthermore, he cannot access any of the other classes' abilities when he is spacializing in one of the classes.
That's a pretty bold declaration of intent, there. And note that when I brought up the subject with MCA, I didn't know about that bit, so I didn't get the chance to mention it as part of my reasoning for why I believed it to be a bug.
Qwinn
Edited by Qwinn, 28 July 2009 - 12:56 PM.
#16
Caffiend
-
- Member
- 13 posts
Posted 28 July 2009 - 01:09 PM
Issues like this are exactly why I prefer modularity. Evidence that it's broken from a design standpoint is scant and subjective. That it's broken from a balance standpoint is clear, evident, and largely inarguable. The issue is whether or not balance fixes should packaged as bug fixes.
Minor pedantic quibble; references to "abandoning the way of the sword" are nonsense regardless, since there are no swords.
Minor pedantic quibble; references to "abandoning the way of the sword" are nonsense regardless, since there are no swords.
#17
Qwinn
-
- Modder
-
- 3092 posts
Posted 28 July 2009 - 01:17 PM
Not sure if you saw the quote from the game manual when you posted that. Do you really feel that statement is also subjective?
Note that I had someone (at the Codex, natch) argue that point with me for roughly 6 pages before finally confessing that he was simply trolling and didn't really believe his own argument. If you would, please be sincere before really arguing that point, as I'd rather not go through that again.
Qwinn
Note that I had someone (at the Codex, natch) argue that point with me for roughly 6 pages before finally confessing that he was simply trolling and didn't really believe his own argument. If you would, please be sincere before really arguing that point, as I'd rather not go through that again.
Qwinn
#18
Caffiend
-
- Member
- 13 posts
Posted 28 July 2009 - 01:32 PM
As far as the game manual quote, I never really gave it any thought. I bought my copy second hand without a manual, so I've never actually read it. It's also been my experience that the manuals for PC games exist for the sole purpose of contradicting the actual game, so generally they don't carry much weight in arguments with me.
I don't believe I've given any reason to doubt my sincerity, but if you don't wish to discuss it further I can accept that.
I don't believe I've given any reason to doubt my sincerity, but if you don't wish to discuss it further I can accept that.
#19
Qwinn
-
- Modder
-
- 3092 posts
Posted 28 July 2009 - 01:54 PM
Well, if you eliminate direct support from the manual, major game balance issues, support from in-game dialogue, logic, and an explicit grant of authority to make the determination from the game's lead designer, what would you accept?
Not sure why your not having owned a copy of the manual makes any difference as to its legitimacy as a source of designer intent. I don't consider the manual infallible, but given all the corroborating evidence, I'm not sure how you can dismiss it out of hand.
By the way, I -do- consider the fact that it causes major game balance issues to be a supporting, if not singularly conclusive, piece of evidence of design intent. This is because I give the designers some credit for brains, and if I'm to be expected to believe that the designers -deliberately- threw game balance wildly out of whack in order to sledgehammer the supposed design choice into place, I think that does serve to move the burden of proof to the side arguing it was intentional to find supporting evidence besides the simple fact that that's the way the code was. You know, find me bits of dialogue or evidence from the game manual that -supports- the notion that TNO was supposed to behave as a multi-class character. Convince me why the designers would make such a bizarre design choice that actively throws balance out of whack for no apparent reason, in light of the manual, the dialogues, etc. I choose to default to the position that they weren't seriously incompetent.
Your position requires ignoring the manual, ignoring the major flaws it creates in game balance, ignoring the dialogue of the class trainers, basically ignoring -everything- in order to honor the simple existence of code behaving the way it did. Considering the hundreds and hundreds of obvious errors that no one would argue so far discovered in a game that was literally rushed out the door before being completed, from whence comes this intense respect for the programmer's infallibility?
Which is more plausible:
1) They screwed up one small section of code in the engine, and everything else right, or
2) They really intended TNO to be multiclass as far as THACO, but single class as far as mage and thief skills, and then screwed up the manual, and then contradicted the whole notion of TNO being a multi-class in the class trainer dialogues, and seriously screwed up game balance, yielding a result you yourself concede is "ridiculous", and without dropping a single hint of corroborating evidence anywhere else in game or out that the way it worked was intended... all on purpose.
I think #1 is infinitely more plausible than #2. In fact, I really don't think #2 is plausible at all. Occam's razor, man.
Qwinn
Not sure why your not having owned a copy of the manual makes any difference as to its legitimacy as a source of designer intent. I don't consider the manual infallible, but given all the corroborating evidence, I'm not sure how you can dismiss it out of hand.
By the way, I -do- consider the fact that it causes major game balance issues to be a supporting, if not singularly conclusive, piece of evidence of design intent. This is because I give the designers some credit for brains, and if I'm to be expected to believe that the designers -deliberately- threw game balance wildly out of whack in order to sledgehammer the supposed design choice into place, I think that does serve to move the burden of proof to the side arguing it was intentional to find supporting evidence besides the simple fact that that's the way the code was. You know, find me bits of dialogue or evidence from the game manual that -supports- the notion that TNO was supposed to behave as a multi-class character. Convince me why the designers would make such a bizarre design choice that actively throws balance out of whack for no apparent reason, in light of the manual, the dialogues, etc. I choose to default to the position that they weren't seriously incompetent.
Your position requires ignoring the manual, ignoring the major flaws it creates in game balance, ignoring the dialogue of the class trainers, basically ignoring -everything- in order to honor the simple existence of code behaving the way it did. Considering the hundreds and hundreds of obvious errors that no one would argue so far discovered in a game that was literally rushed out the door before being completed, from whence comes this intense respect for the programmer's infallibility?
Which is more plausible:
1) They screwed up one small section of code in the engine, and everything else right, or
2) They really intended TNO to be multiclass as far as THACO, but single class as far as mage and thief skills, and then screwed up the manual, and then contradicted the whole notion of TNO being a multi-class in the class trainer dialogues, and seriously screwed up game balance, yielding a result you yourself concede is "ridiculous", and without dropping a single hint of corroborating evidence anywhere else in game or out that the way it worked was intended... all on purpose.
I think #1 is infinitely more plausible than #2. In fact, I really don't think #2 is plausible at all. Occam's razor, man.
Qwinn
Edited by Qwinn, 28 July 2009 - 02:29 PM.
#20
Caffiend
-
- Member
- 13 posts
Posted 28 July 2009 - 02:51 PM
I disregard game manuals in general because they seldom bear more than a passing resemblance to the finished product. My stance isn't that you're wrong, as you seem to have mistakenly assumed, it's that there isn't enough explicit evidence either way. Yes, I regard the handful of dialog you dredged up as being subjective. I regard the quote from Chris Avellone as being entirely neutral as to original intent. My whole point is that you made a subjective judgment call, which you've admitted. I'm able to agree to disagree on whether your work in that respect really constitutes a fix, as it really doesn't make much difference to me. It was just an example I pulled from your own statements.
As far as the Occam's Razor argument goes, of course #2 looks better when you load it with subjective statements. Regardless, I don't see this discussion proceeding further in a constructive manner, so this will be my last post on the subject. Thank you for your time.
As far as the Occam's Razor argument goes, of course #2 looks better when you load it with subjective statements. Regardless, I don't see this discussion proceeding further in a constructive manner, so this will be my last post on the subject. Thank you for your time.
