Jump to content

Outside the Ox

Global Moderator
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Outside the Ox

  1. It's not.  (I mean, I can't speak to how you played it -- I think replenishing SP would be a more likely cause of extra trips than inventory -- but those spells definitely do not exist :))


    Look, people really trust your word around here, Randomizer; I wish you wouldn't speak authoritatively about stuff you're only guessing about.  If you're basing your statement on a vague memory from a decade ago -- or, equally, on a vague statement Jeff made -- I really wish you'd indicate that.  People take your factual statements as expert opinions, because of the detailed work you put into your atlases, and so on.  You are trusted.  Which makes it extra important that you say something different when you just mean to bring up a thought as a possibility that you aren't sure about.  When you don't, that's how we end up with urban legends about game mechanics :)

  2. Exile I in particular had relatively little in the way of lootable items.  But even II and III weren't full of random sellable crap the way post-Geneforge SW games all are.


    50 minutes ago, Randomizer said:

    An Exile I singleton has the advantage of being able to start casting lightning and daze to deal with multiple targets

    Neither one of those are spells in Exile I.  I'm not really sure what you're thinking of here.

  3. Singletons were actually pretty popular during the Exile days -- often viewed less as a challenge and more as a personal preference.  They streamlined some of the logistical tasks involved in playing, and as you noted, weren't actually any harder than parties.


    Inventory for them on E1/2 was less an issue than you might expect.  There were fewer slots per PC, but also fewer different pieces of equipment to wear.

  4. See, these are the little details and caveats that I wish you would share from the get-go, to avoid creating urban legends ;)  Remember that "invisible -36% Torment armor penalty"? ;)  (note to anyone reading: that is not a thing, that was never a thing)


    This is something you saw once, during beta testing, a month before a massive engine overhaul; it can no longer be tested for, and we know it definitely doesn't happen in more recent games.  It also doesn't sound like "20 rounds in a fight with a monster swarm" is an environment in which all other variables could possibly be controlled for.


    Even in A4 and A5, we know a lot about how the engine handles things.  It does not have the ability to register multiple copies of the same status.  It just tracks the duration of the status on the character, and a duration of 0 means the status is not present, otherwise it is.  That's it.

  5. One thing that's different in N:R from more recent, non-remake Spiderweb games -- the world is much more open.  Once you get past the ruined hall, you aren't really guided to the easier stuff -- in fact there often isn't any direct indication that a particular area is going to be more or less trouble.  At the same time, there is less variation in difficulty between different areas -- a lot of places you can go have some easy encounters and some harder ones.  C'est la vie.  If an encounter is a killer, and you're not at a high level, leave and come back later.


    Beast Ceremony isn't anything special, it's just some basic buffs IIRC.  And no, multiple layers of the same buff (from whatever source) have no additional effect.  For armor, you mostly have it right, but N:R has a few unique wrinkles.  The percent of damage that each piece of armor blocks varies a little bit from one hit to the next; the stated percentage is a good guide, but in particular it varies massively according to your Armor Use skill.  So if you have extremely low Armor Use, you won't block as much as you expect.


    (As a side note, I don't think multiple layers of the same Shield or Bless buff have had additive effects to anything besides duration, in any SW game in decades... since Exile I think, unless I'm forgetting some wrinkle of the early Avernums)

  6. The problems you ran into with Vlish were probably the result of having them at low levels.  At low levels, the flat bonuses creations get matter more, which helps some creations.  (And basically everything will miss a lot if it is lower level than what it's attacking -- there is nearly zero adjustment to hit rate for specific creations and their attacks.)


    At high levels (and it takes very little time to reach those if you pump Shaping skill right away), those flat bonuses (for stuff like HP and Energy) are massively dwarfed by the formulaic bonuses all entities get -- while attack die size, elements, ancillary effects all still matter a lot.  That's where Vlish shine, and their low cost means you can make them early (and make a lot of them early) to maximize their level gaining opportunities.  Truly OP creations in those games.


    Anyway, that's academic and doesn't help you now, Snowwhite.  You do have a lot of Essence at this point so I suggest, as Nim basically said, picking up some creations that have a higher base level.  Gazers would be ideal for you, especially since you do have some points in Magic Shaping.


    Note that if you want to stay Unaligned (which I fully support -- best ending ever), you CAN temporarily join a faction to reap its rewards such as training, then immediately withdraw from it.

  7. I have to disagree on a few key points:


    1. Guardians are extremely sub-par in G3 -- all melee damage was nerfed significantly in G3, and Parry (which was OP in G2) was also nerfed.  Easily the worst class in that game, and not a great option in G4 or G5 either.  Still playable, obviously, but yeah.


    2. In both G2 and G3, the strategy that moves Shapers from "very good" to "OP" is picking the best cheap creation (generally Vlish), pumping the relevant Shaping skill (Magic Shaping), and making a full party of them early, and keeping them alive, so they gain lots of free levels.  Lots of Intelligence is not the key in those games.

  8. Variants of this situation seem to be showing up a lot, that is, "I have been relying solely on autosave and now doing so has backed me into a corner."


    I know it's probably not what Jeff intended autosave to be used for.  But if that's how it's being used by this many people, maybe it makes sense to design around it, and have two different autosaves, one that is solely zone-based and one that triggers more frequently.

  9. I don't mind the blocky aspects.  What I have a more visceral reaction to is the setup where three regions/countries occupy spiral out from a central region/country, so that they touch nothing else.  In theory that could be OK, but in the context of other releases, it just seems so clear that this is going to be yet another contrived way of explaining linear gameplay.  (Something else which can be OK, but is a lot better when it doesn't feel contrived.)

  10. Specifically, each point in the basic weapon and spell skills all increase your effective "ability level" by 1 point each when you attack.  You also get points directly from Str/Dex/Int (depending on attack type), from your experience level, and (in the case of weapon attacks) from your weapon's item level.  Ability level directly determines damage/healing dealt (it determines the number of dice rolled, basically, which is where the vast majority of damage comes from) and sometimes increases status durations very slightly.  Early on this makes a big difference.  When you are at a high level with a high attack stat, the difference is much smaller.


    Spellcraft and similar skills instead increase damage, duration, etc. by a percent.  This is also subject to diminishing returns, but not to the same degree.  Depending on the percentage amount, this is may be a slightly better bonus (especially late game).

  11. 16 minutes ago, Guillaume said:

    As for 1.,  may I know once for all what is the rationale of ''frowning upon necromancy'' ? I am playing old games for the first time, hence I necro a lot.

    My post ties 100% into the thread, there is no answer anywhere else and the game has not been updated for ages, meaning the answer is still relevant today.

    So, beyond the sadly too common appetite for passive aggressiveness behind a screen, is there a tangible reason for disliking forum necromancy ?


    This really is the way things are done here -- Triumph wasn't being "passive aggressive," he was letting you know for the future.  I'm not sure there is a more direct way to do that than just to say it... :)


    Your post is definitely relevant to the thread, in terms of subject matter!  The problems with posting in threads that are this old are more about context: outside topics relevant to the original conversation (such as the features of current Spiderweb games, plans for remakes, the game industry in general, etc.) have often changed dramatically; because most threads don't cover a span of so many years, once the thread has been resurrected, most readers are unlikely to realize so many years have gone past, and confusion and misunderstandings ensue.  This really does happen.


    In fairness, most topic necros are FAR LESS relevant, and have far less substance, than yours.  Maybe if they were all like yours, we wouldn't discourage topic necros so much.  But most of them are awful... and so we do.


    Bottom line though, there's not really any down-side to simply making a new topic and linking to the old one.  It's clearer for many readers, and it doesn't cost the person making the post more than maybe 10 seconds.


    I hope that explanation makes sense.  Also, just a reminder for everyone, let's give each other the benefit of the doubt.  It's hard to read emotions in forum posts.  And on that note, yup, definitely time for this thread to end.