Quiconque

Those soldiers are very strong. You are not intended to defeat them, you're intended to find an alternate path around them. This is why the game says "if you don't want to fight your own people, you'll have to find another way around." EDIT: Sniiiiiiiiiiiiiped

Why? Serious question: trying to understand. Is it basically because that's what we're used to?

CRPGs have evolved to this weird place where people expect 95% hit rates. I don't understand why this happened. I mean, I can follow the trail of games that led it to happen, but it just seems dumb. It's certainly not realistic; it doesn't happen in pencil and paper RPGs nor does it happen in any other genre of video game I can think of. Misses on huge, all-or-nothing effects are swingy, annoying, and not fun. But misses on regular attacks? They add dimension to combat. They require the player to plan for contingencies, rather than executing a formulaic victory in every random battle. And another thing, get off my lawn 😛

Oooh, wow. Nice analysis.

Somebody asked this in the AMA the other day. Q: "Is Stonehouse a reference to Woodhouse from Archer? Furthermore, does this make our adventurer a medieval Sterling Archer and the Queen would be Mallory Archer?" Jeff's reply: "Yes. If you want it to be." (I confess, this immediately made me like the queen a bit more.)

I'll write more later, but so far, I think this is the best new game Spiderweb has released since at least 2006 (G4), certainly the freshest and most interesting. It discards some of the tried-and-true CRPG doilies people are used to. (I say new game because it's harder to compare the Avernum remakes, which are so soaked in nostalgia.)

Chin up though -- a peaceful solution can be achieved with the second group of deserters in that area. That depends entirely on how you handle the encounter, no reputation is needed for it.

I think it just meant you will take 3 points of damage of the 12 points the armor was applied to. Could have been phrased better, but that's how I read it.

I don't think we have a good answer. Educated guess based on past games' mechanics and the manual description: You are wearing: Armor, blocks 60% of physical damage up to 10 points Helm, blocks 20% of physical damage up to 4 points You are hit for 20 The armor blocks 10 points (hits 10 pt cap) 10 points remain The helm blocks 2 points (hits 20% cap) You take 8 Basically, the % and the point max are both caps on what it can block. It blocks as much as possible but can't go over either limit. Unlike with past armor systems, though, the order could matter here: You are hit for 20 The helm blocks 4 points (hits 20%/4 pt caps) 16 points remain The armor blocks 9 points (hits 60% cap) You take 7 Presumably there's a fixed order by equipment slot. What isn't specified is how rings and other effects that just say "+1 to Physical Armor" or the like work. I guess just a flat reduction of 1 point? EDIT: The total on the character sheet, then, is basically the maximum amount you can block, but it is only likely to apply when you take significantly more damage than that.

Yubaba but not Zeniba? Kiki but not Jiji?

livejournal > facebook *ducks*

Illustration: .x..... ....E.. ....... ...P... Player (P) clicks to move to (x). E is an enemy. Obvious routes are 1. NW, NW, N. 2. NW, N, NW. 3. N, NW, NW. Routes 1 and 2 leave enough AP to attack afterwards. Route 3 means you run out of AP before even reaching square x. Pathing engine seems to prefer route 3.

One pathing problem that I keep running into (no pun intended) is the algorithm's seeming preference to try and walk next to an enemy whenever possible, even when I am moving 90 degrees away. Losing combat turns this way gets old, and I can't just go full keyboard since ranged attacks require the mouse... so it becomes a game of click-one-square-at-a-time. Even if more nuanced pathing algorithms are impractical, it shouldn't be hard to put in a check that says "if you're about to walk next to an enemy, stop and prompt/beep at the player instead."

Respectfully, dismissing a long argument with "nah" is not good faith engagement in a discussion. That's troll behavior. So I'm going to do the only thing I can: stick out my tongue at you and walk away.

This is a false parallel, because there is no instance of anyone spelling "green" as "xynaljs". If you could point to instances of people doing that, then I would absolutely acknowledge that it is a thing some English speakers are doing. The other reason this is a false parallel is that spelling is not quite as malleable as usage. Spelling really does follow rules -- yes, even in English; and while there are exceptions, there are no words in English where the spelling is completely arbitrary and has no relationship either to English phonology or to the spelling of an origin word in another language. Usage has more flexibility, particularly in an analytic language like English. Syntax and acceptable constructions shift all the time. Yes -- it's a lot easier to disprove something than it is to prove it. You are demanding positive proof. (Actually, you're demanding positive proof that an authority likes the construction, which is different from whether it's actually used in the language. Dictionaries and grammar books never have access to the entire living language.)

Actually, the CMOS, now that you mention it, lists about a kajillion uses of hyphens -- it has a 5 page table -- and there's a row for "ever-" constructions. Nonetheless, this does not answer my question. It's not about whether it's common usage -- of course it's not. The question is whether it's erroneous. Your list itself just says "here are some cases where everyone agrees" -- it doesn't say that cases not on the list are wrong, and it goes out of its way to disclaim exactly that. So once again I ask, what is the specific basis for this being unacceptable? Lack of presence on an explicitly non-comprehensive list doesn't cover it.

As mentioned, this is difficult since you can't google hyphenated words. Can you share the specific basis you've found for this being unacceptable? On the plus side, it's been way too long since we've had a descriptivism vs. prescriptivism brawl here...

Have you tried the solution here? https://steamcommunity.com/app/1058130/discussions/0/1628537372818450551/

ever-threaten could be used poetically. I'm sure I've seen ever hyphenated with verbs in postmodern novels... I'm not good to defend it as good poetry, but that's an issue of style and not syntax. Can't find an example because google hates punctuation (sigh).

Casual is a name. It doesn't sound like solo "casual" is actually very casual at all. I suggest we baptize it "Casualcore" and enjoy.

Yes, you do. From looking at the scripts, I see nothing to suggest that hit/miss calculations are handled differently than in the past. The stats are different but to-hit modifiers are still there.

Wait, to hit and evasion are separate checks? Really? Huh. That's a first.

Okay, yeah, so those are definitely adequate. This is a little puzzling. Do you have anything else running? This means (a) other applications open, or (b) anything installed that is active in the background. If you hit Ctrl-Alt-Del, and pick Task Manager, you can see a list of all this stuff. Worth checking to see if anything there looks off -- OR if anything shows a sudden spike in CPU or Memory usage every 5-10 seconds.

Some more helpful info you can give us: 4. For graphics issues, please state your graphics setup (monitor, graphics card, CPU, etc.)

Randomizer - "I've rarely an attack miss even on torment difficulty versus a boss monster." "I've seen a monster evade 5 attacks in a row so it pays to increase it" These seem to point in different directions... any thoughts?