View Full Version : What do you want?
Best way to start these discussions I suppose.
What do you want to see in UTT3?
What are UTT2's Strengths as a module?
What were its weaknesses as a module?
We want to hear from you.
What do you want to see in UTT3?
Why, obviously... more of the same... only better! ;)
What are UTT2's Strengths as a module?
- RP-centric
- large and detailed world; this includes both overall number of areas, and their quality and detail level
- low-magic world, slow XP/level progression
- true to the setting
- large number of detailed and complicated quests
- well-written NPC dialogues (in term of both detail level, and style)
What were its weaknesses as a module?
- could be more true to the setting (having classes & spells in mind)
- primitive faction system: good/evil not taking into account races and nations is just too simplistic for ME; lack of truly neutral faction is also a weakness
- lack of things to do outside of quests: free exploration/hunt areas, crafting (of course it is all there by now, or at least making its way; I'd just rather see even more possibilities in that regard)
- somewhat disbalanced classes: some are much harder to play than others
- no single place for extensive documentation (playing rules, module-specific changes for races/skills/spells etc); manual does not cover it all and often lags behind, so one has to skim through the forums, trying to determine which information is up to date, and which isn't
- linearity of some quest sequences (evil ones in particular)
- for high-level quests, too easy to die when doing it for the first time and high death penalties combined can result in a major source of frustration
- too much content simply disabled for balance reasons (classes, spells feat) rather than being replaced with something more appropriate, reducing number of choices
- primitive faction system: good/evil not taking into account races and nations is just too simplistic for ME; lack of truly neutral faction is also a weakness
If you'll allow me to address this one quickly . . .
I am currently working on a much more dynamic involved faction reputation system. True neutrality will probably still be difficult to maintain for a long period of time, but through careful choice of actions etc. it may be possible to maintain an appearance of neutrality. However if you go around freeing prisoners of Mordor or killing elves your neutrality will quickly be shot to pieces.
Thanks int19h
I'll have to agree with the weaknesses you outlined. (Im sure there's more!) Some things there which we really need to address for UTT3, so i'd be delighted to discuss these in detail with you here.
- could be more true to the setting (having classes & spells in mind)
I'm assuming here that you are referring to the creation of appropriate spells? It appears that the ME "magic" was more illusional (people appearing taller and more scary, sudden brightness/darkness) rather than the common stereotype of fireballs and lightning forks flying around. It's a fantastic idea in theory and i'd be keen to see how it played out. Taking this route though will lead to a smaller range of spells i think, thought thats not entirely a bad thing.
As for classes, I'm keen to hear what your ideal setup would be. Please tell us more.
An idea I have aired over "magic" classes, particularly the Sorcerers, is that their magical abilities be reduced (in terms of range of spells and ME suitability), but in return, they recieve a greatly increased fighting ability - ultimately, they can hold their own in moderate difficulty combat (which is what we want for all in UTT3). So yes, perhaps sorcerers could wear armour and weild any weapon they choose. They could get stuck in too instead of hanging around at the back all the time and resting frequently to replenish spells which they rely on - More fun for our "magic" players and their party too.
Right, a lot to say there...whats next... :)
- primitive faction system: good/evil not taking into account races and nations is just too simplistic for ME; lack of truly neutral faction is also a weakness
Ghost81 answered this one well for you. We really want to make actions have consequence in UTT3. This means that every quest, kill, conversation, tresspass and player to player interaction (when witnessed by a DM) will have consequences. We really want this to work in UTT3 so we will be putting plenty of effort to bring in the most effective system possible. Obsidian have been banging on about actions having consequence in NWN so hopefully this will be equally possible in UTT3.
A neutral system will hopefully work in UTT3 with these characters being able to choose what they do from the off, with opportunities to work for whoever they wish (including themselves!). However, be wary of upsetting one faction too much or they may never accept you again!
- lack of things to do outside of quests: free exploration/hunt areas, crafting (of course it is all there by now, or at least making its way; I'd just rather see even more possibilities in that regard)
They are on their way, but they came too late. A mistake which will not be repeated for UTT3. With side adventure readily available from the off, PCs will be able to choose whether to work for someone or wander off on their own. These side areas may hold their own secrets which may give you opportunities in the future.
- somewhat disbalanced classes: some are much harder to play than others
Feel free to list specific concerns so we can chew over them and maybe even come up with ideas for UTT3 as we will be tinkering with various classes. But there is some inbalance which needs addressing. Sorcerers may benefit from by above suggestions, rogues need a helping hand with dealing more damage I think - we really wanted them to be the 'lurking killers' of the world but they are currently the 'lurking wounders' though that is an improvement from the previous 'seen wounders' now that true seeing is gone (and will remain so).
Certain class types are at a disadvantage tooo i think - fighters as archers and dex fighters. We have worked recently on cheap ammo but it's come too late. UTT3 will offer cheap ammo with the full range avaialble with a few exceptions. Damage from archers will be increased too to give them more stopping power.
We need to work on this area so comments are welcome.
- no single place for extensive documentation (playing rules, module-specific changes for races/skills/spells etc); manual does not cover it all and often lags behind, so one has to skim through the forums, trying to determine which information is up to date, and which isn't
It's true - a big balls up on our part which i'll take most the blame for. Misinformation and misunderstandings has been spread because of this. As with all shortcomings, we will be making this a priority for UTT3 by having a manual and full forum information ready prior to the first module release. A lot of forum threads are going to the archives and will be repleaced by crisp, up to the minute topics.
- linearity of some quest sequences (evil ones in particular)
I can think of a few things here, but can you tell me a little more about this issue?
- for high-level quests, too easy to die when doing it for the first time and high death penalties combined can result in a major source of frustration
I really sympathise with this view. Some of the later quests have proven a great challenge and perhaps overly so in some cases. Designed for groups of 5 or greater, its not always possible to meet this requirement.
My honest feelings here; I don't like it when a character dies on a quest before the finale...I really hate it because the player hates it and it's not what I want my quests to offer. We (well I at least), don't create quests with killing the player in mind. The idea is to allow them to see areas of the world they've not seen before, appreciate the surroundings, have a good time with their friends, have some good scraps with their enemies, have a laugh and enjoy the plot as it unfolds. We need to make sure this principle is being followed and we will make sure it happens for UTT3.
- too much content simply disabled for balance reasons (classes, spells feat) rather than being replaced with something more appropriate, reducing number of choices
This will need to be remedied for sure. There will be changes to the game system for UTT3, some similar to as they are now, some completely new. But for each change, we will do our best to find an alternative and we will be coming to you with any ideas we have.
As for classes, I'm keen to hear what your ideal setup would be. Please tell us more. An idea I have aired over "magic" classes, particularly the Sorcerers, is that their magical abilities be reduced (in terms of range of spells and ME suitability), but in return, they recieve a greatly increased fighting ability - ultimately, they can hold their own in moderate difficulty combat (which is what we want for all in UTT3).
Indeed, I was mainly referring to the issues with the Sorcerer class. On a side note, instead of making sorcs more warrior-like, what could be done is restrict them to, say, 10 classes, thus requiring them to multiclass eventually. That way, the player gets to choose what exactly he wants in addition to magic powers - fighting ability (sorc/fighter), healing (sorc/cleric), diplomacy (sorc/bard), stealth (sorc/rogue) etc. Or maybe go one step further and make them a prestige class, not even takeable on lvl1.
Another issue is with clerics. In UTT2 good-aligned clerics almost universally tend to be healers (which makes sense), but another category is evil necromancers (Evil/Death domains make a very nice RP combo there). Seeing how different those two goals actually are, perhaps it warrants two distinct classes, with necromancer types obviously being alignment-restricted, and getting more nice bony summons, cursing/draining spells etc, while healers get the better healing spells.
Feel free to list specific concerns so we can chew over them and maybe even come up with ideas for UTT3 as we will be tinkering with various classes. But there is some inbalance which needs addressing. Sorcerers may benefit from by above suggestions, rogues need a helping hand with dealing more damage I think - we really wanted them to be the 'lurking killers' of the world but they are currently the 'lurking wounders' though that is an improvement from the previous 'seen wounders' now that true seeing is gone (and will remain so).
Indeed, it was precisely my point. Sorcs, rogues and bards have it pretty hard early on, though they catch up with (but do not overcome) fighter types on higher levels. Paladins and especially DDs, on the other hand, are rather powerful at any level.
I can think of a few things here, but can you tell me a little more about this issue?
Well, as it stands, an evil char can only be a minion of Mordor, no exceptions. Furthermore, the sequence of quests to be taken to progress in ranks offers no alternatives either - it's always Dol Guldur, then Isengard, then Mordor, effectively forming a single chain. Compare to goods, who can roam around at their leisure, and avoid places they do not like for some RP reason (e.g. avoid the Rangers, Rivendell elves, or Rohirrim if they feel like it).
It would also be nice to have separate quest lines for evil humans and orcs/goblins, with humans able to start as free men unassociated with Mordor in any of the mannish realms, rather than thralls in Dol Guldur.
This will need to be remedied for sure. There will be changes to the game system for UTT3, some similar to as they are now, some completely new. But for each change, we will do our best to find an alternative and we will be coming to you with any ideas we have.
It's not so much about the quests themselves being hard; it's more about how it is quite possible to slip several times in a row, and lose most/all gold and XP back to the beginning of the level. Especially when it's all earned in such a hard way... Gold can be a particularly big deal, since everyone needs food, and on higher-level quests having a few healer's kits is pretty much obligatory for character of any class, regardless of his role in the party.
Come to think of it... what about having some place in the game to loan money from, complete with interest rates, and angry guards stalking chronic debtors on the streets of the city? ;)
So perhaps an additional evil mid-level area is needed to mirror isengard. We never got round to setting up Harad though that would suit only a select group of PC's. Perhaps Umbar? Being a large region it could even offer a secondary start location and offer activity for a full level spread.
I liked the sorcerer ideas. We will definately investigate this.
Any other comments? Does anyone else wish to add to this?
Umbar is a good choice for that sort of thing. I was actually referring to it, for some reason I mistakenly believed that Umbar was a part of Harad, which is not the case (despite its inhabitants being mostly Haradrim). Naturally, the City of the Corsairs, being a major city, as well as the largest port in the region, would be the most busy place in these lands and thus a perfect setting for quests of a wide level range.
By the way, this was discussed, though in the context of UTT2, some time ago already: see this (http://forums.wireplay.co.uk/showthread.php?threadid=311264) and this (http://forums.wireplay.co.uk/archive/index.php/t-311311.html).
DM_Aiwendil
20-10-2006, 17:31
On classes, I quite like the concept of making all "pure" magic classes PRCs. No-one should start out with such a "profession" but it could be something you shift towards/into as you discover the mysteries of the world (and want to discover more).
Umbar is an exciting prospect for the development of quests. I only wish it had been added sooner to UTT2 since i had so many exciting sea battles and raiding quests planned...We can just add them to UTT3 instead :)
I like Aiwendils idea by the way. There are a few methods we can use for magic users - which one do you prefer?
DM_Aiwendil
21-10-2006, 11:49
The prestige class idea was Int19h's mentioned in passing above, I thought it was worth pulling out to highlight.
What do you want to see in UTT3?
Throwing spears.
i sugested it for utt 2 but at the time i think it was more hastle that it was worth to implement it.
DM_Aiwendil
22-10-2006, 14:57
*raises hand* A complete rewrite of the D&D ruleset/NWN engine.
(No harm in asking ;))
Prophet7
22-10-2006, 15:59
I haven't been around for a while...haven't had the chance to buy a new computer. But my new roommate brought hers and I plan on getting NWN2 soon and starting Tyrion and Teclis once again. I haven't seen what has been done here in the past year but here is my two cents on what I remember.
The economic model, expecially in the early levels of any character, made money as important as it is in real life. I agree that archers needed a break (Teclis spending 2k for just a quiver of decent arrows) and some of the necessities can be expensive. But I would like to see some relatively good equipment for sale even for higher level characters. It could be outrageously priced requiring someone to save for a long time to afford just one item, and if the script is not too difficult int19h's idea of a bank would be useful. Such things could create more room for a merchant character than just a crafter.
When I left DM Kev had just instituted the updated Mad Mage quest and that one Rohan one...can't remember the name. They were well-rounded in-depth quests that took forethought and strategy to complete, even if you had already had been through it and knew what was coming around the bend. Footprints that one could read, side quests, etc. made the quests realistic. I really like the idea of campaigns across Arda, and the idea of big battles are even better. The big DM events like attacking Tharbad or Minas Tirith were one of my favorite parts of UTT2, and if that sort of big battle could be put in a NPC quest...
Int19h makes a good point about a true hunting ground, areas where there are no quest but still monsters to kill. If you play long enough there is always a point where there are no quests to do expecially if the building of UTT3 will be an on going process like UTT2 was. Also it could be a chance to put more animals in the world and give druids a reason to have animal empathy.
Although it weakened my character, it was good to see cleric's offensive magic taken away. A powerful healer is still extremely useful and in its own way a powerchar. I would like to see what NWN2 has done to increase buffs because I have a feeling they did. Overbuffing could become a problem very quick once again. Sorceror spells could become buffs, charm/confusion, fear, and that sort instead of much offensive magic.
UTT2 was a huge improvement, and I have faith that UTT3 will be just as good if not better.
*raises hand* A complete rewrite of the D&D ruleset/NWN engine.
(No harm in asking ;))
Which is why I fully support this motion. ;P
Thanks guys.
Throwing Spears - a great idea and very suitable. I'd love to see these in the game for UTT3. We will see if they are a possibility using Electron (the new toolset) and if not, how much work will be required to make an implemenation possible and of the quality we need.
Nice to see you around Prophet7.
I agree that archers needed a break
So do I. Already in UTT2 we are creating seperate ammunition merchants who sell full ranges (in most cases anyway) and at much lower prices than from your average smithy. This means that our archers can now enjoy fine arrows from low level and at a practical price. Not only are archers finding life easier, but they are packing a punch and becoming a valued member of any party. UTT3 will be adopting this method from the beginning.
and if that sort of big battle could be put in a NPC quest...
It's an incredible thought, isn't it. We (well I at least since ive made the vast bulk of quests) are always striving for better quality quests to provide fun and challenges for parties of players. We now have the experience and know-how to produce exactly what people want. Already we have a number of quests containing scripted battle sequences to represent situations such as sieges and assaults on positions defended by PCs (and NPCs). In the works is a new evil quest which uses these sequences in several ways - a particularly interesting one is an enemy counter attack. These sequences can be adopted to represent things like chases and take and hold scenarios.
Generally, as characters become more experienced, the quests will become more involving and events will escalate - hence pitched battles and the need for such sequences. UTT3 will see region quests becoming more campaign oriented. Each quest will be related to another, creating a campaign progression and escalation for each region - this will create a compelling story to follow and just be more fun for all.
if the building of UTT3 will be an on going process like UTT2 was
I've decided that lots of small addons and semi complete regions is not what people want. UTT3 will be released in complete sections, our own expansion packs, if you will. There will be an initial release in (estimate) March/April. This release will be complete. This means that all regions will be fully interactive, stores and people will do what they're meant to do and all the quests for a region will be available.
Any emergencies and oversights will of course be attended to and fixed, but new content will arrive in big, complete chunks. This will eliminate issues with half-done areas and a general feeling of being stuck and general incompleteness.
timppako
23-10-2006, 11:12
What I'd like to see:
-multiple starting locations
Perhaps even different starting locations for different races or at least multiple options to choose from. I know it would take more work to make many quests for new characters and it would lower the chances to meet fellow players, but it would greatly increase replayability and could enhance our RP options. Like now the starting locations are becoming a bit too familiar. It would be good that different races would have 1-2 or even three different locations to choose from.
-different faction design
Instead what we now have like for evils is that you start in Dol Guldur, then go to Isengard etc., there could be a system where you during playing or perhaps even from the beginning join to a certain faction. This would then tie you to the faction, giving you the possibility to take more quests, especially high level, from that faction and limiting and perhaps even preventing you to take quests from other factions, maybe even make some factions hostile towards you. This could also encourage players to have many characters and increase replayability. It would also make a lot more work in making quests and designing areas.
With this kind of faction system you could give a better picture of different goals of the factions.
(example of factions: Dunedain rangers, Rohan, Men of Norh, Gondor (Ithilien rangers, Knights of Dol Amroth), Orcs of Isengard, Orcs of Mordor, Elves (Rivendell, Lorien, Mirkwood, Havens), Harad and Khand)
-Make it so that NPC guards are not hostile because of your alignment, but are hostile towards certain races. This way you could, for example, make an evil Gondorian, who might not serve the enemy he is just crooked, but perhaps he could be later recruited by some enemy agent. This way characters alignment could truly reflect his view of the world and his morals. And it would give more RP options. Perhaps it could be made by different tokens? That there would be a racial token and even criminal tokens for different factions. You could be a wanted criminal in Gondor, but free in Rohan or Tharbad.
That's all for now... I hope you get the idea. :)
Thanks timppako.
Your first two points are echoing the sentiment of others which is great. We want to give players more choices and be more in control. Expect at least 2 starting points each for good and evil. A third im unsure of - depends on builders and what can be done in our initial release timeframe. Factions suggestion is great, we will investigate this along with the many other ideas we are following up.
-Make it so that NPC guards are not hostile because of your alignment, but are hostile towards certain races.
That's a good one. The rest of the suggestion looked good too. Again, more options and control in the hands of the player which is what we want. Aiwendil may want to input on this idea too.
It should be noted that guards reacting towards race & faction rather than alignment is quite doable in terms of scripting even in NWN1. What more, we already have that working at least in part, with guards making life hard for orcs in Tharbad and Bree.
DM_Aiwendil
23-10-2006, 14:40
Regarding Timpakko's faction ideas, I think that Ghost's "Reputation" System is going to address that quite accurately. Quests will be limited according to your reputation towards a particular faction, rather than a crude alignment/level check.
E.g. if you have been working almost exclusively for the forces of Mordor, expect to be offered progressively difficult/higher profile quests from mordor than from the Northern Rangers, who don't know who you are and are less likely to trust you.
(Yes, making guards react to race is fairly easily doable, but much more so with a clean start as with UTT3 than trying to rewrite every convo in UTT2! If we also incorporate the set subrace idea - given a choice of a list of subraces at character creation/first log in - then we can even use subrace in this for humans perhaps. Having said that there is talk that humans should have more accessibility to more areas as their alignment is not always obvious from their race (not withstanding predjudice based on skin colour etc, if that is possible with NWN2))
Another flip side of the Reputation system will be that it has a 'spill-over' effect. Aid the Shire and Bree and you may find that your reputation with the Dunedain improves (after all they guard these towns themselves). Aid one Elven nation and the others may give you warmer welcome. The Men of the North (Esgaroth/Dale) will likely have close links with the DWarves of Erebor. However the opposite is also true, do great deeds in the name of Gondor, and you will find a less than warm reception with the forces of Mordor. Aid the Rohirrim in noticable ways, and whilst Gondor will approve, factions within Isengard may not.
I'm not going to go into numbers or further detail (as this may be an 'invisible' system), but I can tell you that the whole idea of reputations and factions will be a lot more dynamic and flexible (and your starting ratings may be impacted upon by sub-race and alignment).
i like the idea of it ghost81, however i can see it being hard for neutrals...or is that one of the reasons for it?
DM_Aiwendil
23-10-2006, 16:10
Personally I think it *should* be hard for neutrals. How long can you avoid "taking sides" even if you just "conform" to those around you without truly believing in the cause. But the new system (in concept, which remember it still only is) should make it easier for neutrals than the current non-neutrality of neutrals. You should be able to balance your neutral status for a good while, if not indefinately, by chosing your patrons carefully. I would, however, expect that its only "fair" that the majority and the highest quests be quite clearly good/evil (that is a major part of the setting after all).
As I said originally it will be hard to maintain true neutrality forever - and no it should be. High reward quests are going to be those that make you noticeable, which will make you both friends and enemies.
Yes you could probably spend your whole life in the shire and Bree, helping out people who've taken no actuial side, but you won't become an impressive warrior etc doing it. The other thing to bear in mind is that not all quests will have negative reputation. Helping Breelanders and Shirefolk (for example) with local problems isn't going to throw you into the notice of the forces of 'evil'. However no-one can maintain neutrality once they start working for one side or the other in a 'war' (and I use the word advisedly) situation. In the setting people who do high visibility tasks for a 'warring' faction are going to be noticed by allies and enemies - can you see Sauron saying 'Oh you releases a group of my prisoners for money? That's okay, now you can ambush a Gondor convoy for me' or Denethor saying 'You betrayed our garrison at Cair Andros for gold? You're a mercenrary? That's alright then - you can deliver these messages to Rohan for me' ? - It wouldn't happen, if you want to stay truly neutral you would have to avoid openly taking sides in the wars. Delivery for factions sin't going to make you so noticeable so will have lesser faction spill over, but takingdirect action will get you seen so have further reaching effects.
fair one, i only have one neutral character atm its hard to keep him balanced. Its just too easy too go chaotic or lawfull as choices are very easy, theres no sitting on the fence your one side or the other, simple as.
i agree that the more prestigious quests should be strictly good/evil
Just curious about what was in store for neutrals.
My plans (as I will be building the Breelands) is for a full range of quests in the area, some of which will be higher level - and won't be accessible until the people of Bree know you. It will be possible to get high Rep with places like Bree without alienating others, unless you mess directly with a particular faction - but this may not be something you're aware you're doing. I would picture there being quests for most factions that improve (a little) your standing with them, without seriosly damaging your standing with others.
It all depends what your character wants/what you want for your character - if they're happy mainly working in the 'corners' of the world, not becoming embroiled in world events too much, then neutrality is possible - if they're someone who wants to make a difference in a big way then neutrality will inevitably slip - one way or the other.
I'm not against neutral characters, and what with more non-quest areas an aim, they will have a place in our world, but we do have to bear in mind the backdrop - which in the long term may make neutrality difficult to maintain.
Mhyradin
23-10-2006, 17:24
I like the sound of the plans for Bree already. Particularly the prospect of the area offering quests of different levels. I've sometimes come accross characters that rate as effortless in Minas Tirith and have to fight the impulse to send them a tell saying that they're in the wrong place. Currently, the fact that certain levels are closely associated with certain areas only adds to the sense that the quests are linear, as int19h was commenting on.
I would also like to pick up on Timpakko's point in respect of the start locations. The fact that more log on areas become available as you level, re-enforces the idea that the module is some sort of a campaign, instead of a thing unto itself. Given that the quest minimum and maximums are carefully scripted, I think there is room for the sort of flexability that Ghost is suggesting in many areas when developing quests for UTT3. Should this approach be adopted more universally then the module would offer more opportunities for high and low level characters to interract as they would be more likely to bump into each other in the neutral areas. While we need rules to say who should party with whom in respect of level, there's no reason that characters of vastly different level shouldn't roleplay together and I feel that having a good mix of quests at the settlements would encourage this.
Thanks for the explanation, ghost. This all makes a lot of sense, and I'm really looking forward to seeing this work in the game. Finally, a system which does allow one to be a true mercenary...
By the way, it might be just my thinking, but wouldn't a neutral (mercenary-type) character be able to get benefit from remaining neutral in form of quests, though lower-level, available in large numbers from all involved sides? In other words, where a Dunedain paladin might be involved in a line low to high-profile Rohan and Gondor quests, a Dunlending mercenary will gather all the low/mid-level missions from all factions not outright hostile, catching up with the paladin in the end.
Int - that should indeed be possible - you'd be able to do quests up to a point in most areas - however all quests will never be available to one character - firstly for balance, secondly for the setting. If you're playing a neutral something to think about is - who will this quest please, and possibly more imoportantly - who will this quest really irritate. There will be some correlation between rep's with opposing factions though. If you manage to get to the highest faction reputation level with one faction without doing the heavy hitting quests - which shouldn't be possible if things goto plan, but you never know. Then this will have to automatically hit you with a massive penalty with opposing factions.
Obviously this is all only on paper so far, but to give an example - you hit the highest rating with Gondor - this means that common citizen's you talk to with treat you with respect, give you a title of resepct Master/Lord/Sir/Milady etc, the leaders of the faction (Denethor + son's plus others) will talk to you by name (there may be other more tangible benefits too - although this will hold true in all regions - neutral and otherwise). Now if you're this well known in Gondor then agents of the enemy will know you too - even if you've not done anything very strongly against them they will start view you with suspicion at the very least - and aer unlikely to trust you with further tasks. Now this works from both an RP front - as explained above, but will also help keep balance in the server.
Having said all that it is my hope that you can't get to those highest levels of faction reputation without doing major deeds for a faction.
DM_Aiwendil
23-10-2006, 17:50
Int19h, that's exactly how I imagine it also. A "jobbing" neutral mercenary will take on a lot of the "low profile" jobs that your idealistic good or ambitious evil (to pick two sterotypes at random :)) would turn their nose up at. But at the same time the mercenary would not take the sorts of "high profile" - they will sing songs about you - tasks as he knows it will ruin his hard earned neutrality - his most valuable commodity.
Mhyraddin, I think the range of quests is something we would all like to see in every "faction" area. Not only does it feel more "natural" (Bree might have a basement that needs clearing of rats but at the same time it might have a hardened bunch of bandits that needs sorting out, or a passing merchant might need to hire guards to escort him half-way across the world through dangerous territory, etc) but it also helps to fill out the world.
Kev has already proposed that we will start smaller and expand in full add-on stages. Outside areas are going to be resource intensive, we have to live with that, but not so much internal areas (and not conversations and scripts). Having fewer external "main areas" but with more internal "side areas" (and thus quests) may be the best direction to take.
As you can all see, the reputation system (the method we intend to proceed with) is very well thought out and very dynamic. I think this addresses many of the requests made by players for more flexibility.
As stated, neutrality won't always last as the high level quests are very demanding in terms of the actions required of you. If a character is involved in a massive attack on an enemy position, it's going to be hard, if not impossible to regain the trust of another faction.
Aiwendil is right on how we will be approaching areas untill we know more specifics about external area requirements on our servers. We may be surprised and change things, although I am already making arrangements to upgrade the memory out of my own pocket. The initial release will have complete areas as I said before - rich with activites for everyone. Should keep you all busy till we have a next release to roll out.
DM_Melian
24-10-2006, 16:05
Neutrality in at least one dimension is a necessity for druids. Under the reputation system as described, it looks as though they will need to maintain neutrality on the chaotic-lawful axis if they get involved in larger events and necessarily take sides on the good-evil one. This means that they will need a way to remove chaotic or lawful points if they end up getting them from accidental tomb-clicks or from quests/dm actions that change alignment. At the moment, there is no way to counterbalance unwanted chaotic points, nor many for lawful, once past the earlliest levels. I suggest ensuring that there are such means, for druids at least.
DM_Aiwendil
24-10-2006, 17:28
Have a plan on my desk by the morning ;)
Another thing to bear in mind this is a Faction Reputation System, not an Alignment system. Yes it needs to be possible for certain classes to maintain alignments, but this is more about staying neutral in hte war between factions.
DM_Aiwendil
24-10-2006, 18:09
If I can explain a bit further - the Reputation system is a completely separate system from alignment. There may (will) be some cross over where one effects the other (i.e. I would not expect you to be a highly regarded Mordor operative and remain Good) but even in the most extreme case it will be, as Melian supposes, on the good/evil alignment. If we can come up with ways to make the lawful/chaotic axis dynamic then I'm positive we will - but its a very difficult area and might be best left alone (no chaotic points for grave robbing etc). It needs further discussion though of course.
But let's not get away from this thread, it wasn't about what we have planned, its more about "What you want" (it just happens that so far most of the ideas have figured into our early planning in one way or another, which is very encouraging that we're on the right track for the most part).
(Btw, in case it comes up, I'm already planning a customised loot system that will drop treasure according to the particular region you are in and even slanted towards the inhabitants of the specifc area (i.e. Goblin related food and items would be found in the South Downs.)
But keep 'em coming :)
timppako
29-10-2006, 19:12
Making combat more deadly.
The idea of making combat deadly so that it would be scary if you get into a fight. Even with low level enemies. This would encourage more RP, but require care in designing quests. It would be very good to have it so that combat would be the culmination of the quest and something to be taken very seriously, instead of it being the main thing in a quest. This might be too custom for some players and some might find it boring. But then would it be boring if combat would be quick and deadly and something you always fear of? This could give more importance to feats, skills and battle tactics and most of all RP.
I've been thinking about two suggestions:
-When you get hit by a critical hit you make save against death, if you fail you die.
Pros
*would make combat more deadly, every little critter could kill you, but not likely
*some armours could be built to give bonuses against death
Cons
*some nwn classes which have huge bonuses to saves would benefit perhaps too much?
*some builds might get too powerful, too easy to score a critical hit
-Making it so that PCs all have the same amount of HP. For example everyone gets 3d10+CON bonus in the beginning and when you level up you do not get any extra HP. You only gain the skills and feats and spells.
Pros
*the differences between low and hight level PCs are not so great in terms of HP, but the skills, feats, spells and attacks still make a huge difference
*every enemy and every fight would be dangerous
*ranged weapons would be really scary as would 2h-weapons in skilled hands
*easier to make quests?? bigger portion of players could take the quest and thus offer more variety
*differences between classes would not be so great and stealth assassins would be scary
*all skilled fighters would be very scary, but still they need to be careful with low level enemies
*quest designing could emphasize other skills more
*better equipment would be something you really appreciate
*parrying might really be a good idea
Cons
*damage spells would have to be tweaked (but this could be taken into account if all
spellcasters would be prestige classes and custom made, like has been suggested)
*some players might find it too custom
-General suggestion, but it could be very necessary in the second suggestion
*make shield so that depending of the shields size it would have a certain percentage which it would block ranged attacks coming from the front part of the PC (preferrably not in close combat??)
*something like: small 25%, regular 50%, tower 75%
*shield is something you really want to have when your enemy is shooting arrows towards you
I hope you get the idea. This is just a suggestion. In my opinion it would be closer to a real world where you really do not want to fight and if you have to, you want to do it in your terms.
misterroboto2
29-10-2006, 19:27
If you don't mind me saying, I think your two ideas -namely the crit fort save or die and the limited HP - are just redundant. If the second one is applied then a critical will kill just about anyone. As you also said, it would make sorcerors and rogues extremely powerful and they already are. Need I remind you how easily a BN assassin or a ranger assassin can take someone down even under the current rule? Also, as people level, they'd get more and more AB and more attacks. Since the AC stops to increase at about level 14 or so you would see more and more and more criticals on both sides, hence making things downright unplayable. I think your objective would be better implemented by simply putting a level cap of, say, 5 or 10.
DM_Aiwendil
29-10-2006, 19:41
First of all I'm not sure if its possible to intercept critical hits (the combat engine is one of the most "locked in"/hardcoded aspects of NWN1, I have no reason to believe it will be opened up any more in NWN2.
I won't comment on most of this as it does have pretty wide ranging implication that would need careful consideration but I think misterroboto2 has probably nailed it.
However, I want to pick out one point here that I think has a lot of merit and is something I was going to bring up myself on the Dev forum.
*quest designing could emphasize other skills more
I think that is definately the way to go. Even the best thought out and atmospheric quests tend to end up as a just a big battle. There should be more scope for skill specialists beyond the odd little advantage. A particular skill, or lack of it in a party, should mean the difference between success and failure, no matter how many fighters or spellcasters you bring along (IMHO). Look at Bilbo and the Dwarves again. That party would have taken down Smaug with or without the rogue in the party in our game. There should be a real reason to have Bilbo along other than "pretending" to scout. (Random spawns is one that springs immediately to mind for the scouting, but there must be many more opportunities from this approach - whether they are easily implimented or thought out is another matter, but something definately worth keeping in mind.)
I would encourage wizards to specialize in one spell school to give up the evocation school. The most spells that really don't fit into a ME setting comes from that school, though there are several spells like acid arrow or flame arrow that belongs to conjuration.
To make spellcasters a PRC is one idea, though i really can imagine e.g. an Eldtritch Knight character build, that fits fine to the setting, that mostly casts spells to improve his / his allies' fighting abilities and decrease the enemy's. Increasing the requirements for a wizard as PRC would definately make such a character nearly impossible!
I like the idea of encouraging Bards and Warpriests. These are IMHO the default ME magic users, those that fill the hearts with bravery.
timppako
30-10-2006, 16:51
I feel I'm misunderstood here. :)
I was just throwing suggestions to the upcoming UTT3 and would need a complete custom classes and a careful planning of quests. Combat should be something you really want to avoid unless there is no other options, especially if your opponent has greater numbers than you.
A critical hit with a big weapon would surely kill anyone. The big question behind my post was that do you aim for realism or hack and slash? I think combat is deadly even to high level chars when they are fighting with enemies of the same level, but a single high level char would single handedly kill every peasant and citizen even if they attacked in one big horde and that is the saddest part in D&D rules. I find D&D most enjoyable in the levels between 3-6, because around that level things are still fairly realistic. You fear the archers for they inflict quite much damage from far away and fear a horde of goblins for they can kill you fairly easily, if they get the chance. A chars skills should increase, but their ability to sustain more hits should not.
Problem is that in NWN the HP system in a way represents the PC's ability to defensively fight. But a careful planning might make the system more "realistic". I'm not trying to say that we should try to aim to total realism, NWN cannot do that. :) But there are some ways in which you might be able to have characters have around the same amount of HP (maybe 50 is better) and the level determines his skills and abilities. Probably it would be better that all chars would use the same BAB (main classes or more preferrably the second classes) so that everyone is about as good in the beginning. And then have the feats (weapon proficiensies, weapon focus, knockback, etc.) and skills to make the difference between characters. Yes there should be custom feats also. Would it all be worth it? I might have to say no, for many players could find it too custom.
With that kind of system you do not have to put certain areas where all the mosters are instantly fatal to a low level char. Sure there would be creatures, NPC, etc who are very skilled and dangerous, but most orcs would be easy. So the world would feel more like a world where just certain individuals are very skilled and dangerous and some places are dangerous because they are just filled with enemies.
As Aiwendill pointed out, it would really be nice that quests would take use of multiple skills, not just fighting. Persuade and intimidate and bluff could be used more. For example when take the Dunland quest, you could perhaps talk to the dunlanders and try to persuade/intimidate/bluff them in order to gain some advantages. Perhaps bluff that there are more soldiers coming and have some of the dunlanders running away (spawning less enemies?). Maybe more enemies should be more talkative before they turn to hostile? Some thugs near the road who want your money, another chance to persuade/intimidate/bluff them away? Chance to intimidate some orcs or goblins with your elf that they think that some great elven warrior is coming after them, thus again spawning less enemies? Having some NPC's give a quest only after a successful persuade/bluff/intimidate check?
I'm just throwing ideas towards to you. I hope to inspire you and perhaps give some ideas. I'm thinking that the developers are doing a great job, so every bit of inspiration they get will benefit us, the players.
:)
Mhyradin
30-10-2006, 19:15
Something I'd like to see in dungeons is for the majority of them to be labelled as no resting areas. Small transitioned rooms could be placed throughout the dungeons that represent 'defendable areas' in which resting is allowed. This would prevent those who rest too regularly from doing so and give an interesting twist to adventure planning.
misterroboto2
30-10-2006, 20:23
It would indeed be a good idea to control rest locations if not rest timing. I think it'd be better to regulate areas than the timing itself because sometimes someone chooses a wrong spell or ability before resting and thus need to rest yet again.
Mhyradin
30-10-2006, 22:33
I understand that there is a script in place to prevent people resting too regularly, which is rendered completely redundant by the current module time speed.
Which leads me to another point: I would like to see some more consideration of the time scale. When we did the harvest festival the other day the celebrations went on for five days. Now I know that Hobbits love to party and that Trista is an excellent hostess but even so.. :D
The default time scale is about right for doing a campaign where all you do is run around killing things, its action game scale and this requires action game speed. However I do feel that for roleplaying purposes consideration should be given to having a game clock that is much closer to real time.
Several workable ideas have already been suggested for giving a sense of long journeys ect in Middle Earth and UTT3 can probably rely on these to give the world a proper sense of vastness.
Kyle Morgan
31-10-2006, 04:51
I have seen some very good suggestions and ideas at this topic.
I agree with most of the points, int19h raised.
Before i add some more detailed input about classes, races and magic, i want to say that i would like to see the next generation of MERP to be started without any magical item. If the need arise, they can still be introduced.
I was very fond of the idea to have magical classes as prestige classes, so i sat down and tried to gather my thought how i would design a system of races and classes for MERP3 and here is what i came up with.
This is only a rough (incomplete) sketch - a few first thoughts, to get a feeling of what i would like to see. Feel free to comment:
Races:
Elf(minCHA 13, minWIS 13, Movement increase 10%, Running Duration +50%)
Dwarf(minCON 14, min STR 13, Movement Decrease 5%, Toughness:+1HP/lvl, Running Duration-10%)
Human()
Dunadan/HalfElf(minCHA 11, minWIS 11, Movement Increase 5%, Running Duration: +15%)
Hobbit(Movement Decrease 5%, Running Duration:+10% Infirm: -1HP/lvl, SR=lvl)
Orc(minSTR 11, minCON 11, Movement increase 5%, Running Duration +20%, cursed in daylight)
Uruk(minCON 13, minSTR 13, Movement increase 10%, Running Duration +30%)
Olog(minCon 14,minSTR 15, Regeneration, Running Duration +5%)
Base Classes:
Fighter
Rogue
Barbarian
***
Bard
<revised spell list>
***
Ranger
***
Elder Elf (Monk)
Elder elves gain perfect control over their bodies. They can inflict damage to ethereal creatures like wraiths at higher levels by gaining a spiritual aura.
***
Prestige classes:
Weapon Master
Dwarven Defender
****
Member of Order of the Light(Paladin); Prerequisite: Join the order by fullfilling a special quest.
Led by Alatar of the Istari, this rare fighting elite is especially trained to fight the creatures of the dark.
<usual rules apply>
****
Elven Loremaster (Harper Scout)
Elven Loremasters know about every sort of charm. For each lvl they gain the ability to create and use a special magical charm:
lvl1: Protection from Magic (SR)
lvl2: Raise Abilities
lvl3: Enhance Attack
lvl4: Enhance AC
lvl5: Protection from Harm (DR)
<apart from spells, usual rules apply>
****
Blackguard
Assassin
****
The Curse Of The Nine (Pale master); Prerequisite: Cursed by one of the Nine
These fallen to the Curse of the Nine will continously divert from humanity. With increased levels they gain the power to call creatures of the dark (only spells: summon/dominate undead)
<apart from spells usual rules apply>
****
Man of the wood (Druid)
<no shifting abilities, revised spell-list>
****
Beorninger (Shifter); Prerequisite: Human, Alertness, minCON 14
The beorninger can shift to animal form. The higher the level the more powerful is his animal form
<revised list of shiftable creatures>
****
I like the above suggestions.
For Dunedain & elves and perhaps Numenorians, I would also suggest that no attribute be below 10 unless a case for such is presented to admin and agreed by them.
Dwarves may be able to get away with Charisma down to 8 but no race , other than orcs and their ilk, should be allowed take more than one attribute below 10 without a nod from admin.
A few things on the above.
First, half-elves make a good choice to represent Dunedain (and BNs too, since their appearance and physical traits are quite similar), though some of their more "magical" abilities (like immunity to Sleep) would have to be removed. This is not a new idea either, I recall seeing mentions of that more than once on IRC and forums. I'd also add a cap of 10 INT for Orcs/Uruks/Ologs, and make Ologs the slowest race (10% decrease or so) - otherwise they seem to be overpowered. Also something would have to be done on Orc/Uruk distinction, some - even small - reason to pick Orc over Uruk. Darkvision, perhaps? At least Wikipedia says:
These Uruks of Mordor referred to Sauron as the Great Eye, and Grishnákh was one of their captains. They were all long-armed and crook-legged, not as tall as the Isengarder Uruks but larger than the Moria (common) Orcs, who could see better in the dark than the Isengarders.
I also agree that, if magical classes become prestige, then Paladins should join the bunch. For your average honourable goody knight, there's always LG Fighter.
Monks are a tricky thing. I did come to like the class a lot myself, but they (fighting monks anyway) do not fit the setting well. There's certainly no mention of monk-like figures or philosophy strands among Elves or western Mannish nations I can recall, and the concept seems to be rather alien. At best we could say that such tradition comes from little-known eastern realms (Khand, for example), which would be consistent with the D&D Monk class as it is (e.g. its rather exotic weapon proficiencies). Not sure it would be even worth a bother then.
Rangers could get their magical abilities replaced with something more fitting to the class in ME; maybe go for the good old stereotype of them being more archer-types, and more emphasis on track reading (the latter would have to be scripted in quests, though). Now that crafting is there, perhaps also make them particularly good at herbology, more so than any other warrior class; also, if we get a system for gathering raw ingredients in the wild, which would require identification of said ingredients, Rangers would probably be the ones to get the inherent class bonus for that sort of thing.
A side note on prestige magic classes: this only means that they cannot be taken at lvl1, and above lvl10 (until lvl20 is reached). The prerequisites could be made such that e.g. sorcs can go that way right from lvl2, not having to wait for long.
And an unrelated feature request: let characters begin at lvl2-3 or so rather than lvl1. This would allow any effects, albeit minor, from varying builds and multiclassing combos to become noticeable enough for RP purposes.
I do agree with that assessment on certain classes, int19h. With reference to your last point on starting levels, my plans for Dol Guldur include starting quests where they allow the new-to-nwn2 player to learn how to play before moving onwards. For players who know what they are doing, yes, we could jump them up a bit.
Then again, we could not bother teaching new game players and further the "customise your character from the start" system we use now, AND add 2 or 3 levels AND give more gold so that these characters are "ready" and designed in the way the player wishes.
What are peoples thoughts on this starting out issue?
DM_Aiwendil
31-10-2006, 22:10
Not sure we need a tutorial. Well, not for NWN anyway. Perhaps something to prepare new players for our mod and the principles its designed around might be a good idea if its not too cheesy.
Level 2 to start maybe but I'm sure we should go higher than that.
Mhyradin
01-11-2006, 00:43
I like the idea of 'starter' quests, it gives the player the opportunity to acclimatize themselves to the setting and on UTT2 the xp handouts are quite generouse as is the xp for kills. The first few levels can be achieved solo currently and as long as this quest design approach is followed for UTT3 then the first few levels don't have to be 'given' away. New players can have fun doing the quests and old ones will know them like the back of their hands and will be able to do them in very little time anyway.
The first few levels can be achieved solo currently and as long as this quest design approach is followed for UTT3 then the first few levels don't have to be 'given' away.
They can be soloed, but when given the choice, surely it's better to party? And when it comes to that, I'd rather have my PC slightly more developed.
It is better to party, but being level 3 rather than level 1 won't help that in any way. The same problems with finding a party regardless of level will exist then as does now.
I've always been against servers which give levels away on entering - it seems to give players the wrong impression - everyone I've visited, even those that pertain to be RP servers, tend to be populated by powergamers, and people racing for levels - this may not always be the case, but has been in my experience.
I can't actually see any gain of starting a couple of levels higher - does it effect RP - no, in fact it just means that the developers have to make the starter quests a little more difficult, and scale everything else up appropriately. Also if we have a relatively low level cap again, it will shorten a characters experience in the world as well.
DM_Aiwendil
01-11-2006, 10:22
I think the idea is that it takes a few levels for class/build differences to start to show/become useful, meaning that with a few levels under your belt characters are more clearly suited to particular roles (in the party and in the world).
I tend to agree with ghost's view of giving the wrong message though and it can be much nicer to RP your characters early growth and development.
It is better to party, but being level 3 rather than level 1 won't help that in any way. The same problems with finding a party regardless of level will exist then as does now.
Of course, and noone said that is an issue with starting at lvl1.
I've always been against servers which give levels away on entering - it seems to give players the wrong impression - everyone I've visited, even those that pertain to be RP servers, tend to be populated by powergamers, and people racing for levels - this may not always be the case, but has been in my experience.
Correlation does not imply causation, and then again... doesn't it always feel good to break some evil but long-established tradition? ;)
I can't actually see any gain of starting a couple of levels higher - does it effect RP - no ...
Actually, yes, it does, insomuch as your character's class, feats and skills do. Which I think everyone agrees they do - otherwise elven rogues and orcish clerics would not be discouraged. Here's an example for UTT2: a particular build I find most suitable for a Ranger of the North is Ranger/Paladin, for fairly obvious reasons. This is quite distinct from either pure Ranger, or pure Paladin (even DEX-oriented), and that distinction can and should carry over to RP. But, for the distinction to show, at least lvl2 is needed to get 1 level in each class. The same goes for any other multiclass build. Prestige classes are different of course (in that one usually needs way more than 2 char levels to get even 1 level in a prestige class), but that's why they are called "prestige"...
Also if we have a relatively low level cap again, it will shorten a characters experience in the world as well.
It obviously depends on how many levels you give at the beginning. From my experience in UTT2, characters get their lvl2 in the first 1-2 hours of play (basically doing all non-combat Shire quests is what it takes), and quite often lvl3 in the same day, if a suitable party is formed for tougher Shire and Bree quests. So that's how much would be taken away should the starting level be higher. It doesn't seem to be a big deal for either lvl2 nor lvl3 as starting level to me, but even so I'd prefer lvl2 (just enough for multiclass builds to show their nature).
DM_Aiwendil
01-11-2006, 12:09
It obviously depends on how many levels you give at the beginning. From my experience in UTT2, characters get their lvl2 in the first 1-2 hours of play (basically doing all non-combat Shire quests is what it takes), and quite often lvl3 in the same day, if a suitable party is formed for tougher Shire and Bree quests. So that's how much would be taken away should the starting level be higher. It doesn't seem to be a big deal for either lvl2 nor lvl3 as starting level to me, but even so I'd prefer lvl2 (just enough for multiclass builds to show their nature).
But counter to that: is it such a big deal to wait those mere 1-2 hours for your char to start to show those distinctions? Especially balanced against the possibility of giving the impression that its levels that matter.
I usually use those few few hours/levels to try and "get into the skin" of the character. If they don't feel right they won't generally get past level 3 and I'll just start another so I find them useful in that regard.
Having said that I wouldn't personally be dead against giving one level (to bring you to level 2) after the starting equipment area/system, providing there is a genuine desire/purpose for it (which is still debatable).
Mhyradin
01-11-2006, 12:53
I can't actually see any gain of starting a couple of levels higher - does it effect RP - no.
I still agree with this point. We don't introduce ouselves in character by saying: "hello I'm Patsy the paladin/cleric." And, given this, why would it matter that the build isn't yet what you want it to be? A character can have their own outlook and history at the moment of generation and can therefore be roleplayed. For me the 'pile of numbers and feats' way of looking at characters constitutes less than half of who they actually are.
While I agree that, ideally, characters should be partied for quests we also have to give consideration to the new player who logs onto the mod and finds themselves wondering what to do. At the moment the Shire is nicely engineered with little quests that have them running backwards and forward (greatly increasing the chance of them running into other characters) and gaining their first couple of levels. Which to my mind works very nicely.
But counter to that: is it such a big deal to wait those mere 1-2 hours for your char to start to show those distinctions? Especially balanced against the possibility of giving the impression that its levels that matter.
I fail to see how it would be a greater motivator to believe that levels matter any more than the level-centric D&D system in and of itself, to be honest... ;)
I still agree with this point. We don't introduce ouselves in character by saying: "hello I'm Patsy the paladin/cleric."
No, but it's your skills and feats which "give away" your PC's background to other; in addition to your RP, of course - which might at some times include the desire to not otherwise elaborate on said background. It's the sort of thing when some guy who feels somewhat shady, despite being a smooth talker and projecting a nice guy image, suddenly turns out to know his way around locks and traps and such - that's when your char starts asking questions. How is it not RP? Yet it's all about the character's skill (Lockpicking) in this case, something that's strictly build related and comes from the 'pile of numbers' you mention.
For me the 'pile of numbers and feats' way of looking at characters constitutes less than half of who they actually are.
I agree that it's 'less than half' RP-wise, but it's still a noticeable part of what they are. Otherwise, like I said before - why no elven assassins, dwarven rangers, and orcish clerics - if 'pile of numbers and feats' is really not of any significance?
Kyle Morgan
01-11-2006, 15:03
I agree with int19h that your classes and levels does have impact on the roleplay. When i imagine Naighîn to be rebuilt as a Sorceror/assassin i can assure you that the impact on my rp would be gross. ;)
Nevertheless nobody starts there where you want your character to be. Everyone used to be a lvl0 civilian before chosing the first class. Thus the difficulty arise when you chose to play an already established role, but i do not believe that you can find a general solution for that. The players will always have to arrrange with the module in one or another area.
Personally i believe that the starting level is correlated to the starting quests. If your starting quests are designed for lvl 1 then starting at lvl 1 is appropriate. If all quests are designed for lvl 1 then a level cap at lvl2 might be a good idea. :slider:
Kyle Morgan
01-11-2006, 15:13
Monks are a tricky thing. I did come to like the class a lot myself, but they (fighting monks anyway) do not fit the setting well. There's certainly no mention of monk-like figures or philosophy strands among Elves or western Mannish nations I can recall, and the concept seems to be rather alien. At best we could say that such tradition comes from little-known eastern realms (Khand, for example), which would be consistent with the D&D Monk class as it is (e.g. its rather exotic weapon proficiencies). Not sure it would be even worth a bother then.
I agree that the RP-concept of Monks as eastern martial arts Zen master does not fit the Tolkien world. Hence i suggested to use the class and its numbers/feats/skills but change its background to Elder elven. Personally i find the class feats combined with the elven weapon proficiencies very suitable for elves and perfectly integrating with Tolkien's world. I would although remove the lawful requirement and maybe replace it with requirement: good alignment.
DM Curumo
01-11-2006, 15:18
Getting rid of the super hyper drive speed is another thing that does not suit this world, when it comes to monks. So limiting the class to a maximum of 10 levels would be my opinion on the matter.
It also rules out some of the more weird special abilities, such as very high damage from fists, self healing, spell resistance. Etc.
Hence i suggested to use the class and its numbers/feats/skills but change its background to Elder elven.
The problem is, I don't recall many (or even any) masters of hand-to-hand combat among elves, whereas Monk feats and UAB are really all about hand-to-hand...
And once you get rid of UAB and SR (as Curumo suggests above), the class will become weaker than pretty much any, even the weirdest, build.
DM_Aiwendil
01-11-2006, 15:47
No, Curumo is suggesting capping Monk levels at level 10. They will only lose whatever they would get from 11 - 20 (unarmed damage stays at 1d10, no Diamond Body, Diamond Soul, Quivering Palm, Empty Body, Perfect Self - and no monk speed).
I always thought it odd that of all classes Monks were made to stay pure, when it is almost universally agreed that the most powerful monk is the pure monk. I do conceed that its not a suitable class to multiclass from an RP point of view (if you go with the obviously "Shaolin/Grasshopper" slant of the class) but by the same token I agree its not very suitable for ME.
Perhaps a similar but less "spiritualised" version of the class (prestige perhaps) to allow for unarmed combat specialists, but with a more boxing/wrestling/Tulkas design? (A Paladin of Tulkas should fight unarmed and unarmoured like the Valar himself (with a "laughter" feat that bestows fear on their opponents :)), but with any class other than Monk, this is plainly suicidal.)
DM Curumo
01-11-2006, 15:49
Dwarven Slugger / Drunken Master ;)
DM_Olórin
01-11-2006, 15:49
Most new characters wil achieve level 3 or 4 within a couple of playing sessions, especially if in a party. A lot of low level XP is very easy to get indeed. I can well understand why there is an argument for starting on level 3 but its one that i think is adressed in many ways by offering non combat and low risk quests to players at very low level, and to start at level 3 would undermine the "starter level" content that has been included.
Yes we could beef up the starter level content, but that would probably have the knock on effect of having to increase challenges at higher level quests as players will find themselves approaching those levels that bit sooner.
Even if it did not effect higher level quests it would certainly change the nature of areas like the shire. It would either make them entirely redundant or make them dangerous. Id like to see neither of those things happen of course :)
I personally feel its better to earn the experience rather than start with it. In the case of long lived races it can be argued that they should enter the game with a lifetimes worth already, but its not something we can do to one race and not others. In the past ive had players ask me to start them at level 10 because they want a powerful character. Naturally i refused that request. :) If still possible to RP a powerful or experienced character without having to give them a leg up. In a RP situation your actual level is less important than your characters persona anyway.
No one is obliged to agree with any of this of course and as i said there are arguments in favour of skipping the "embarassing pre-school" of the first couple of levels :D if you dont feel that there is a viable RP route around those vulnerable early days of a characters in game life. But there is you know. There's always a way to do it if you want ther to be one.
In my experience, and i have played all kinds of characters on this server, I honestly dont feel any need for jumping the first couple of levels. Some of my "elder" character types are also among my mid to lower level characters. I find this no obstacle to RPing them as venerable or indeed from an earlier age. Indeed most of my ingame time with such characters is purely RP and not in way dependant or influenced by the level they have achieved in a game sense.
Bear in mind this is only my opinion. Im sure that it you take time to analyse what i say here that there are a gamut of ways to tell me how wrong I am... After all ive been away a while... But there is - directly - no wrong or right. Its a matter of style.
DM_Aiwendil
01-11-2006, 15:58
Even if it did not effect higher level quests it would certainly change the nature of areas like the shire. It would either make them entirely redundant or make them dangerous. Id like to see neither of those things happen of course :)
And Shirriffs would have to change from the amiable village PC Plod to the Armed Response Unit!
(Dixon of Dock Green goes Dirty Harry!)
*faints dead away*
No one is obliged to agree with any of this of course and as i said there are arguments in favour of skipping the "embarassing pre-school" of the first couple of levels ... But there is - directly - no wrong or right. Its a matter of style.
Indeed, I wholehearedly agree. I do feel uncomfortable when some of my characters' background is not really represented properly at lvl1, so I avoid partying/RPing until after completing a few Shire quests to get another level and get the character to where I intended him to begin his "proper" life in ME. It is largely for the same reason that I advocated for the free shop in the starting area - it lets characters begin their life prepared the way players want them to be, within reasonable limits. But I understand that it is a personal preference, and some (the majority, as it seems) prefer to go with what they get, and RP their way around it.
Perhaps a similar but less "spiritualised" version of the class (prestige perhaps) to allow for unarmed combat specialists, but with a more boxing/wrestling/Tulkas design? (A Paladin of Tulkas should fight unarmed and unarmoured like the Valar himself (with a "laughter" feat that bestows fear on their opponents ), but with any class other than Monk, this is plainly suicidal.)
That sounds more like the Brawler (http://www.nwnwiki.org/Brawler) class.
DM_Aiwendil
01-11-2006, 16:06
I have, once or twice, done the same thing - sneaked in the first level solo at quiet times ready to face the world a little more fully formed. I think it's better to allow that freedom of choice. It doesn't take long to get that first level if you feel you really must for your character, but not all characters need it, and in fact it would be detrimental to others such as the fresh faced innocent Hobbit leaving the Shire for the first time, or the farmer out for revenge against the goblin raiding party that destroyed his farm etc...
DM_Aiwendil
01-11-2006, 16:07
That sounds more like the Brawler (http://www.nwnwiki.org/Brawler) class.
Yes, quite that sort of thing.
DM_Olórin
01-11-2006, 16:17
On monks.
I feel that while Tolkien made no mention of anything like them they can be fitted into Middle Earth, as Middle Earth's cultures reflect real world cultures in many other instances.
However, in my opinion they belong among the more exotic human cultures as they do in our own world.
Its not impossible that certain elves might choose monk-like aesthetics and meditations, but such elves would need to be extremely rare indeed. Elven kindred culture doesnt really mirror the wide range of human cultures and while mystical in many aspects just dont feel like kung-fu masters to me :) Perhaps some sort of elvish monk subclass as mentioned above but it would need some pretty careful thought.
Dwarf monks, no (it would mean not desiring a ton of posessions), hobbit monks no (it would mean a healthy diet), half orc monks, er, no (it would mean self discipline and learning).
The reason monks were allowed to remain in the first place when other classes were removed was due to a precieved desire in the community that they should remain. Many people enjoyed them and with a slight stretch they could fit in without unbalancing the world in favour of that class. We restricted the commoner expolits of monk levels by making them single class only. In addition it was becoming painful to keep chopping out bits of the game and watching the disapointment on all the tear stained faced of the players who were watching their favoured classes go the journey and disappear into the west (or into an abyss) depending on your point of view :D
As with many things it was a compromise. But for us to achieve a perfect world we would need to destroy NWN and recreate the properties of all its races and classes and feats and such from scratch, or very nearly so. Its not impossible to do that but as with everything else its a question of time and resources. The more work, work, work the less fun those responsible for building, scripting and overseeing the world have. Literally it would become a full time job and most of us already have one of those too :)
I think what we have may be flawed in some ways but sufficiently and enjoyably Middle Earth like in significant others. :). While monks are certainly anomalous in Tolkien, its workable if monk players choose sensibly how to play thier seekers of enlightenment.
Again just my thoughts. Not necessarily those of the rest of the devs.
I have, once or twice, done the same thing - sneaked in the first level solo at quiet times ready to face the world a little more fully formed. I think it's better to allow that freedom of choice. It doesn't take long to get that first level if you feel you really must for your character, but not all characters need it, and in fact it would be detrimental to others such as the fresh faced innocent Hobbit leaving the Shire for the first time, or the farmer out for revenge against the goblin raiding party that destroyed his farm etc...
I agree, and I myself had characters for which lvl1 would be more appropriate. So how about having it as a visible option then? For example, before the character leaves the starting area, ask the player whether he wants that extra 1000xp or not?
DM_Olórin
01-11-2006, 16:46
I agree, and I myself had characters for which lvl1 would be more appropriate. So how about having it as a visible option then? For example, before the character leaves the starting area, ask the player whether he wants that extra 1000xp or not?
The fact is that its not a big thing but *i feel* that its not the mesage we want to send as a server and that would worry me. Do you guys really think that its such bother to do the low level stuff and earn 1000 xp. If it is then we need to address this if the arrival of new players is too hard, discouraging, unexciting or unsatisfyling.
If a thing is broken it needs mending but i wasnt aware of any such problem or opinion in that direction until i saw it here. What needs to be understood is will another shift towards making UTT even quicker and easier at lower levels be a benefit or will it be ultimately negative?
The fact is given the choice, some people will always take the handout whether or not its appropriate.
Kyle Morgan
01-11-2006, 16:49
On monks.
Its not impossible that certain elves might choose monk-like aesthetics and meditations, but such elves would need to be extremely rare indeed. Elven kindred culture doesnt really mirror the wide range of human cultures and while mystical in many aspects just dont feel like kung-fu masters to me :) Perhaps some sort of elvish monk subclass as mentioned above but it would need some pretty careful thought.
I can agree to that. I would rather strip the monk class from every monk-like aesthetics/meditations/Kung Fu etc. when looking at elves. The class-skill range, focus on wisdom ability and the class feats seem elven like to me.
Feats like Evasion, Perfect self, Monk AC Bonus, Monk Speed, Diamond Body, Diamond Soul, Wholeness of Body, Purity of Body, Deflect arrows and Still mind would still fit elves great (IMO) because they are spiritual beings and do not need all the Zen-Philosophy to achieve them. Even Ki-Strike although it might be extended to be usable with weapons.
But then they might even fight unarmed because of their perfect body control, speed and inner foresight to predict the attacks of armed opponents, not because of some Kung Fu martial arts skills.
To find these powers (like Diamond Soul) on humans feels wrong regardless their amount of meditations because they are no magical beings. I can rather explain them on elves, but maybe that is just me.
timppako
01-11-2006, 17:09
On monks.
...its workable if monk players choose sensibly how to play thier seekers of enlightenment.
I agree with Olórin and I'd extend the sensibly part to almost all classes. The weapon master PRC is also built as a japanese samurai in mind, but as Olórin said, it all depends of the players how they play their characters. Are the feats names and descriptions taken too seriously? They just represent the skills the characters have learned. The different ways to learn a same skill are many... Ki strike, perfect body, diamond soul, etc. Should aura of courage automaticly mean that all paladins are completely immune to fear? Common sense and imagination are the tools that help in here. But it would be nice to have few different kind of prestige classes for a monk-type character. The more options there are more easier different people find what they are looking for.
*coughes* the new PRCs *coughes* ;)
DM_Olórin
01-11-2006, 17:13
not having looked up exactly what diamond soul does, but if its the immune to non magical weapons feat. that i feel is inappropriate for monks anyway as few enemies he will face will actually have weapons with enhancement on. more so here.
we should rename this thread "the thing about Monks is..." thread ;)
Edit: im informed by DM_Namo that its Magic Resistance. This could be seen as spiritual strength. Its not necesarily a magical trait, but indeed the lack of magical susceptibility. Still with magic reduced here it could be considered gratuitous. Possibly something else might be more appropriate.
Immunity to poison or disease or such is not half so bad as its about command over ones immune system and bodily energies to combat such things with great effect. Sorry if i got the wrong end of the stick. Im sure someone wouldve told me sooner or later :) In the classic eastern monk type that does still seem appropriate. its not necesarily magical, mystical yes but something naturally so.
Note: That last comment is not intended to open any cans of worms what so ever.
misterroboto2
01-11-2006, 18:01
What do we want? More candy! When do we want it? Now!
heehee sorry I just couldn't help it :P
aaaanyhoo... about the monk class: I think it fits the Avari (or Sylvan) type of elves. Their magic resistance could be a metaphor for how they rejected the valar and the light of Aman. I like to play their unarmed fighting as a rejection of "civilized" weapons and metals. Kinda like hippie fighters ;) . As for their extra speed I see it as a natural consequence of their lack of armour: do you really think a fighter lugging a full plate armour should be as quick to run as someone who is only wearing a robe? Also, the avari (or sylvan) may have developped this ability as they hunted in the wild. Resistance to poison/disease would also be a natural consequence of this.
Well that's just my two cents on it... though I would very much like more candy :d
Insted of summoning an elemental insted, how about an Archer, Fighter or a mage? Perhaps even a squad of them? An Eagle even?
DM_Aiwendil
05-11-2006, 23:12
You know, I really like that idea. You would summon troops of your own race. Would need quite a lot of NPCs (different levels of each race of each type), but a very interesting idea.
I have just 2 hunches about all this...
I'm not against neutral characters as well... I know Tolkien's world is much about black and white, but a little bit of grey is always an interesting hook for RP
And of course.. A lot less magic.. I think that apart from the 5 wizards, only some elves should have a very subtle magic
That is just my opinion... All the rest is just perfect for me as it is :)
Cullkett
19-11-2006, 19:09
I'd like to see less warriors running round in full plate mail, maybe imposing constitution penalties for wearing heavy armour.
looking back through history most heavy armour wearing types would have been on horse back as they would not have lasted very long on foot due to the immense weight and strength needed to move round in such a cumbersome suit of metal.
How about giving all armour the same (or very similar) AC bonuses and the only difference being the dex bonus allowed and maybe a penalty to con? due to the weight.
Can you honestly imagine a fighter in full plate beating a fighter of the same prowess in a lighter armour if any, i'm sure the unencumbered fighter would run rings round the steel clad sloth and soon finnish him off once he was exausted.
i think the only metal a warrior needs is his weapon and and a sheild anything else is just weight...dead weight!
Anyway just an idea but i would like to see the armour system revamped to make it more realistic and offer the fighters a wider range of more balanced armours instead of the obligatory full plate.
Kyle Morgan
19-11-2006, 19:44
I'd like to see less warriors running round in full plate mail...
From what i have seen in NWN2 so far..
There is no walking key. To prevent from running you have to use search mode or track mode ur shift-click. The game is more designed for running, even more so as you do not get as quickly encumbered as in NWN1.
The armour range is more adaptable. I have seen an Arcane Archer Mithril chain shirt that counts as light armour with AC 4 + (max)6 DEX.
Since Ability Bonus from items not stack anymore, you can hardly reach high values though.
Well Hello Hello!
I only have one question. Are we going to be seeing the server up anytime soon? Various other servers have their 'bare bones' on the go - is MERP gonna do the same?
Nope, we're not going up until we're ready to launch with a proper server - it'll be worth the wait belief me.
Quoting my announcement on UTT3:
However, as the future of a new game like this (NWN2) is always unknown, we will be taking our time with the production of UTT3. Therefore, I will be unable to give a initial completion date for the time being, but I will give you one when im confident we can deliver on it. Production has begun and will take place for many months to come to deliver the best middle earth nwn experience yet. Expect the NWN2 forum to become more populated with topics as we progress.
I too have noticed a small number of gameworlds going live already. Whilst it's good to see the NWN2 community off to a good start and that every game community can decide for itself, I've decided on a unofficial date of release for several reasons which I hope people will understand;
As stated in the quote, a new game carries a lot of unknown factors and initial release bugs. We would like to be more certain of what the game is capable of and what issues may allow/prevent us from producing certain parts of the module. Server performance and operation issues can be addressed by our own tests and observation of those servers already online.
There's a fair number of people who don't have NWN2 yet for mostly hardware related reasons. Spending a decent period of time producing UTT3 allows these people who ultimately want to join us in NWN2/UTT3, to "catch up" by upgrading their systems, buying new PCs or whatever they need/want to do.
It is my intention to address a downside to the UTT2 project where large updates were often incomplete, especially where new regions was concerned. For UTT3, I'd like to only introduce new regions in their completed state. I don't want to offer players a half-bake game. So our initial release, to all intents and purposes, will be a "complete" version of UTT3. Of course we will make small adjustments here and there, but nothing game-breaking. Further regional and major changes will arrive in the way of our own "expansion packs". The long initial development period will be dedicated to producing a "complete", exciting, bug free and thoroughly enjoyable classic roleplaying game. I will settle for no less.
Hope that highlights our reasioning and makes sense to people. :)
the-small-print
27-11-2006, 17:01
Just a couple of ideas. I've got no idea how hard it is to script in NWN, so apologies if what I suggest is impossible/ridiculously hard to achieve.
The general idea here is that in the Anglo-saxon/medieval world on which Middle Earth was based, a warrior would have some knowledge and skill in caring for his weapons, and those who were more 'woodcrafty' and resourceful would have added advantages. My ideas are these:
1. Whetstones should be cheaply available, so that you can sharpen your blades before you go into battle. This should probably take a short time, and perhaps some kind of skill check, with a possibility of injuring yourself on the blade. The effect would be to make the weapon keen (or some limited form of keen) for a period of time - or more ideally a certain amount of damage - dependent on the quality of the weapon, the quality of the whetstone (you can actually use some river stones IRL, but you won't get quite the same edge), and the crafting skill of the player, (This would not need to be high; it takes a lot less skill to sharpen a blade then to forge one) until the blade became dull again through use. Also, smiths should be able to sharpen your blades for you to a fine degree.
2. Poisons should be more readily available, and not limited to be only useable by evil characters. There are many plants and creatures that grow in temperate climates which can be used to create poisons of varying potencies. Although I've never used the herbology system, I understand it's a way of crafting healing kits and potions, but why not poisons too? If your character has good enough lore and crafting skills, he/she should be able to gather and mix plants to make poisons to coat wepaons, which could be wither very liquid, so would dissipate fast, or thick and tacky and last for a longer time, or burnt onto the blade and last for ages. There could also be several types of poisons - your average ones which get progressively worse, or fast-acting ones which simply cause a lot of pain, thereby making your opponent weaker and more clumsy, or slow-acting ones that are difficult to cure. As I've mentioned, it should take a high lore skill to properly identify the right ingredients, and some crafting skill to prepare them.
3. Another thing I've found is that bows are, in my opinion, seriously underpowered. I've used several bows in my time, and can appreciate the stopping power that a 120lb draw-weight longbow holds, almost regardless of what kind of arrows it shoots. True, arrow make is important, but arrows in UTT2 are highly overpriced and not really that effective. I think it'd be really nice if you could buy arrowheads and fletching feathers at a cut-down price, and then use your lore and crafting skills to locate and prepare suitable shafts, or buy pre-prepared shafts from shops and suppliers. With this available, those with enough woodlore skills could make decent arrows at a cut-down price and therefore not constantly be out of gold from buying arrows. Also it'd be anice feature if you could craft your own arrowheads from flint, bone or horn you find/gather from rock piles and animals. Horn and bone might not be the best materials, but well-knapped flint (which is hard to do) can be made to ahve an edge twice as sharp as the sharpest steel scalpel surgeons use today. In fact, the very finest scalpels used in surgery have flint blades.
That's most of what I can think of for now.... I'm just a little tired of my stealthy, skilled ranger character doing nothing much but scout ahead needlessly, returning to deliver a report, that even if she did manage to finish the sentence befroe the fighters recklessly charged off, wouldn't make much difference to the actual strategy. It'd be nice if she could mix up a stock of poisons, shapren her companions' blades and coat tehm so that they could do more damage in battle, or poison her arrows so she could actually do some injury to her opponents before the mad axe-wielding dwarf lopped all their heads off, doing 80 damage a time.
Wow... long post. I'm probably never going to get to play NWN2 anyway....
Nightspell
07-12-2006, 23:21
This is more of a question than of what I'd like to see.
What char classes are to be removed from UTT3?
Will Warlocks and sorcerers be eliminated?
Also no one has addressed the Bards ability of Inspiration.
I would like to know what things will *not* be aloud in UTT3. Could make things easier for me to narrow down what I'd like to see. Now that I've gotten comfortable playing NWN2 for a while.
Nightspell -
No final decision has been made on this just yet, though we have a number of general ideas which are very likely to be implemented in some form or other.
1. Removals will likely be Red Dragon Disciples, Palemasters, Arcane Archers and Shadow Dancers.
2. Rather than making new classes, the focus has shifted to modifying existing classes and converting them into a more Middle Earth friendly setup. Hak files in NWN2 load before character creation/selection, allowing us to control base classes and races. So those classes with the few elements that don't fit will get some changes.
3. Magic using classes are going to see the bulk of the new system. Expect the majority of existing magic spells to be removed and a selection of new ones to be created. There will be less spells to cast - in return, magic users will see a noticeable boost to their melee abilities, giving them the ability to cast those useful spells, and also hold their own in combat, to some extent.
Warlocks and Sorcerers and all those other magical classes may well remain in the game, but in a seriously revised form. It is likely we will go with ditching Wizards again for previously stated reasons and renaming Wizard to Sorcerer. The changes to NWN Hak management means we can pull this one off better this time and make it less confusing for new players.
Bards have been nicely setup for NWN2 and in some respects is just what we are looking for. Expect to see their inspirational abilities remain in the game. We may play with the effects a little, but the ability itself shall remain for certain. Bard Spells will be looked at, since there will be universal spell changes, additions and removals.
I could go on a lot more about it, but I hope to address all this a good deal more when we've tested and discussed ideas a bit more. I hope some of your questions have been answered for now.
Nightspell
08-12-2006, 19:58
Thank you Kev. You have answered the main points of what I was asking. Also as you have noted that this discussion could continue for each class almost indeffinately, I agree. I have a great interest into the modifications of each of the classes and much more, concerning char creatation, but not creating new ones. Deities for one, and other such complex information such as a possibility of custom backround labels. Each with their own added bonuses and deductions. If you wish I could compile a complete list of backround labels and deities, ie for good and evil. Might take me a day or two to finish if ya want em. I truely believe this would be a must for clerics and druids. Each Valar could offer a different list of attributes and skill bonuses and deductions. Much the same way the game is now only tweeked.
Sorry to be a pain but each time I play NWN2 and refer my thinking to UTT3, I come up with a new though on how it could be changed to suit Middle Earth. I can't even immagine how you guys/girls deal with it all. :) lol :badcomp: that is what I'd be doing if I was in your shoes. :laugh:
Feel free to submit your ideas. Im looking at Background Feats in particular.
Background feats are a new feature which allow a player to select their characters general background before they begin playing. I'm intending to utilise this feature by creating backgrounds to give a general explanation to their characters starting area and motivations.
So, for example, when a new player chooses their first starting area as Dol Guldur, they could choose, for example, Dol Guldur - Thrall, Dol Guldur Mercenary and Dol Guldur Firend/Ally background feats which will reflect on NPC's reactions to your character and confer certain advantages/disadvantages.
Nightspell
09-12-2006, 08:16
I think it should be well noted that each of these backround feats are based upon a baseline char build. Something a char grew up with or just recently started in their life. Ie. what they did befor they became a thrall of Dol Guldur. And so on. Family backrounds and reputations of such, especially with the elves should be highly exclusive to elves. The same should go with the Dunedain/ Numenorians. Obviously an Orc could not have the same claim to be a farmer of the same rights as a Hobbit of the shire. So in which case if it could be possible each class could have their own specific backround feats and reputations, with some ofcourse overlaping within reason of realism.
Just a tidbit of what I will send in the final revision for review.
On a firther note. I think Druids should be given a good look over. With their casting ability and enhancing abilities of others they have basically become a cleric and wizard all in one. I have seen it to be a very powerful class with high magic abilities. This brings into question the low magic aspect of UTT3. I am not fully aware of exactly how many druids there actually were in tollkins' middle earth but I would have to believe that it was not some merauding army where just about everywhere you looked one could be found. Just a wandering thought that I believe should be spoke of.
Niklas66
20-12-2006, 00:44
Have you decided to use a world map in UTT3 or will travels work as in the previous modules? Opinions?
http://www.legolas.org/gallery/d/3647-2/abm.jpg
World map will *have* to be used - for good and ill I suppose.
In NWN2, it wont be possible to have countless exterior areas, due to their incredible consumption of system resources. That's not to say there won't be many - we will have many exteriors, but each and every one will have to be very rich with activities and places of interest to make the "investment" of resources worth it.
We will use some area transitions between exteriors on occasion, but expect some of those longer haul journeys to be done via the world map. For those travelling purists, it may be a down point, but all that is really required is some adaptation to the new feature. It was a journey, so you can still continue to roleplay around it - make something up! It is possible to setup "encounters on the way" - we will endeavour to use this feature. World map will also be very helpful in helping characters on their own find company faster - thats great seeing as one of the issues with the Untold Series has been the difficulty in finding others to join up with or encounter.
Niklas66
20-12-2006, 17:24
Well mostly for good I hope :). The only thing which made me wonder was how to create the "larger dungeons" (Moria, Silverdelve etc) since they'll require a high amount of detailed areas. For example (bad one though) there was some guy in the NWN2 Bioware forums talking about his ME module;
"I already have moria finished with 7 deeps and 7 levels ...blablablablabla... total areas for moria are 181. Module size is 572MB".
I honestly feel quite a relief not to be forced to experince an exhausting walk across middle earth five times every time I play :P It would really be a good thing to put more focus on "important" areas, which I hope will make chances of meeting other players more likely.
Concerning encounters on the way, is it possible to make the encounters random? I mean sometimes you encounter something, sometimes you don't. This would involve the type of monster spawning aswell, which means not getting attacked by the same three wilderness spiders every time I'm passing through Mirkwood hehe. Of course there should be restrictions, it would be a bit crazy if Frodo Baggins encountered a sleeping cave troll while stealing mushrooms from Farmer Maggot's fields...
Interior areas use significantly less resources than exteriors - in terms of file size, tens of megabytes less. This means we can continue to produce large dungeons and the like - hurrah.
What we may have to do, however, to meet our initial cap of 250 areas (believe me, thats half the number of areas UTT2 uses, so its much less) is to justify interior areas on a resource cost/gameplay benefit - this means that, for instance, some interior shops will have to be placed outside instead to make way for more interiors devoted to moria or other large and highly complex interior layouts we may want to include.
We may also use "recycled" interiors, where many interior areas are built into one area but isolated from each other. For instance - all of tharbads merchants are built in one area, but isolated from oneanother - this saves on the resources of running 4+ areas just for shops.
The intentions I have behind the areas for UTT3 is one of fewer exterior areas, perhaps, but vastly greater detail and roleplay inspiring content such as quests, npcs, guild provisions, community "gathering" areas.
I see every reason to believe encounters may be set as random.
I'd love to see some PvP encounter system, if it's possible:
Let me explain: Players should have the option to couch at an encounter area between certain directions and once another player will travel that direction via world map he should be forced to spawn to that encounter area where that other player waits for her or stalks him. :P
Actually I don't want to encourage endless PvP fights, no, it just could give nice opportunities to encounter other players and RP with them.
However, not sure how this could be possible by scripting. Just could think about great potential by using such a system.
Just my 2 cents!
mattimus
29-12-2006, 19:22
Bring it on, bring it on!
Silverleaf
29-12-2006, 23:29
Whoa..! Look who posted! :D Welcome back Mattimus!
Nightspell
30-12-2006, 02:06
[QUOTE=morez;3287808]
I'd love to see some PvP encounter system, if it's possible:
Let me explain: Players should have the option to couch at an encounter area between certain directions and once another player will travel that direction via world map he should be forced to spawn to that encounter area where that other player waits for her or stalks him. :P
Actually I don't want to encourage endless PvP fights, no, it just could give nice opportunities to encounter other players and RP with them.[QUOTE]
Excillent thought!!! Not nessarlily on the PvP side, but possible, yes. But think of it if some one is traveling on a known road to a specific destination, a city or town, and someone were upon that road not nessarlily trying to NOT be found. Well then anyone traveling upon that road would have to come upon them. A chance encounter for RP or perhaps a PC road bandit? Possiblities??? I like the thought. What say you Kev? Is it possible?
Bahh, Quote thingy not working for me :(
I can see uses for the idea. We are still at a very early stage though, so i'll have to revisit this topic sometime.
Niklas66
30-12-2006, 04:43
some interior shops will have to be placed outside instead to make way for more interiors devoted to moria or other large and highly complex interior layouts we may want to include.
Apart from the area cap problem I would personally prefer if a majority of the shops were placed outside, mainly because of annoying and loading times :D
Also I like Morez idea of a PvP encounter system, I really hope its achievable!
But if, lets say two different parties travel the same way,
short example: party1 travel from Bree to Tharbad using the world map and encounter some bandits. While they are dealing with the bandits party2 are leaving from Bree and are heading for Tharbad aswell. Shouldn't they encounter both party1+bandits since they most likely are using the same road?
Dunno if this maybe just would make things more complicated :S
I'm not too bothered by having shops placed outside right now. It means our exteriors can have more detail and we can use the spare interiors for something worthwhile. It may be a nice way of immersing npc merchants into the world in a better way.
I've not fully explored the world map function yet, as we are lacking a map! I'll get back to this when the time comes.
New Spirit
26-01-2007, 04:05
I'd like to see a xp reward system where you don't get most xp from killing monsters, and don't get full xp when in party while doing nothing.
A system that features the above:
- you get no xp for killing a monster
- you get xp for doing and recieving damage (in a period of time). A system like in Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory. If you do at least 3 x your level of damage over 5 rounds, you get xp. If you recieve damage more than 20% your hp in 5 rounds, you get xp. (numbers just examples.) Monster rating is a multiplier to the damage counter. Easy: x0.5, hard: x2.
That means the longer the fight, the more xp you gain.
- you get xp for skill rolls and saves that were close (miss dc by no more than 5, beat dc by no more than 5). So no xp for skill rolls that are too easy or too hard. Sneaking past an enemy who nearly spotted you would get you xp.
- no party xp for monster fighting. If you contribute to combat (eg do and recieve damage), you get the same xp as everyone else.
- you get half of skill roll and saves xp as party xp, but only if you are in viewing distance (learn by watching).
Ideally, you should get about the same total amount of xp for using skills as for fighting when out adventuring.
xp leeching in party is greatly reduced. If you can't hurt the monsters and can't take a hit, you get no xp.
Oh yes, and no xp penalty for using your familiar or summons in combat. But no xp if your familiar or summon is doing all the work.
The UTT3 campign series will utilise the existing party XP script :)
It's not broken so no need for a fix.
trinita69
20-02-2007, 09:51
I'd like to see only the Following Classes :
Rangers
Rogues
Bards
Fighters
Barbarians
Assassins
BlackGuards
Duelists
Dwarven Defenders
Berserkers
Weapon Masters
==========
Could be better if would be the LOTR Classes ;
Costom classes could be choosen after a lv 1 basic class .
Dakota Strider
20-02-2007, 15:46
While I like the direction you are going, you cannot have Blackguards allowed, but no Paladins, in my opinion. However, since this server has been long established, I am afraid such a drastic change will not occur, as it will not only eliminate a large base of characters with long histories, but it will also cause the elimination of many monsters and possibly quests, that were created so that you need a high level spell user along to defeat.
The UTT3 series will feature the Champion class, basically a renamed Paladin with reduced magical ability and more emphasis on a "fighting the good fight" theme rather than the holy and slightly cheesy outlook on paladins you see in typical DnD settings.
You could say the same in terms of evil for blackguards, though they will be pretty much unchanged. Each of these classes are kind of the fighters who are devoted to a cause, rather than a fighter who may just be a mercenary or the typical hired help.
Cindi Angelheart
21-02-2007, 16:31
This is something Kev and I have chatted about in the past and he said bring it forward for UTT3, so here I am. I think we should change the rules for people with two classes, specifically for those with a prestige class. As it is right now if one is a BG, BN or COM they are required to split thier levels evenly between both classes (likely a fighter or cleric). Now I undertsand this rule was put in place to discourage power builds, i.e. only taking 5 lvls of COM for Devine might, or one lvl of cleric for the scroll reading etc. This is both fair and reasonable in my opinion. However, if I am a prestige class and wish to persue it fully, why am I stuck continueing to lvl the class I required to get the prestige class ? Why can i not be a 10 th lvl fighter/ 18th lvl COM , I would only be trying to persue my prestige class, which is not the power build thing we are worried about. You already are forced to have 10 lvls in your first class which is enough. Please consider alllowing prestige classes unlimited advancement in the 2nd class.
Also on a side note, could Black Num not be a base class ? So you could have BN/BG etc ? just a thought.
It all depends on where we go with level limitations I guess. If it goes above 20 I have no problem with carrying on with the prestige - as long as people have only 2 classes. As you say the game engine requires a minmum of 20 character levels before level 11 can be taken in a prestige class. I did think though that it wasn't an even split but they had to be within x levels of one anaother as things currently stand.
It's not going to be much of an issue till epic levels are introduced. At this time, the engine caps at 20 levels.
There won't be a Black Numenorean class as I see it more as a subrace.
Rules are not something you'll need to be concerned with as characters will be subject to parameters when they apply to join the game anyway.
Silverleaf
25-02-2007, 10:33
Why can i not be a 10 th lvl fighter/ 18th lvl COM , I would only be trying to persue my prestige class, which is not the power build thing we are worried about. You already are forced to have 10 lvls in your first class which is enough. Please consider alllowing prestige classes unlimited advancement in the 2nd class.
I thought this was already in effect? The rule says you need at least 10 levels of your base class and 10 levels of your prestige class by level 20. After level 20, it really doesn't matter, meaning you don't need to be a 14 Fighter/14 COM. Logic would say that you need to be 20 Fighter/20 COM by level 40, but since UTT2 doesn't go that high, it really doesn't matter. :)
Bit more clarification would not hurt, more rules buried in debts of forums. That makes my 12/6 taking fighter levels cl/f knight be wrongly advanced. Only rule i made of aware is to have minimum 10 in both "at the end", and some talk you should be "balanced"
Wrong thread, but valid concern.
I can't really give those kinds of details till I have something substantial to test first.
There also seems to be some confusion here about what t