garth ghost quest

[consistency]

ill keep it short

if you dont bring garret for the quest the non-violent option with the jarl is gated behind 70% presence. the design document says to "Never, ever gate non-violent options or seduction behind Presence."

can we change one of these so that its consistent?

 

[TheShepard256]

I think that part of the design document means "the 'gate' should not be Presence-exclusive" i.e. "there should always be a way to access those options without having a specific amount of Presence". In this case, the 'gate' is "70% Presence OR has Garret" (either of which will do) rather than "70% Presence", so the Presence 'requirement' can be bypassed by inviting Garret along (which is available to all Champs), which I think makes it okay.

 

[consistency]

splitting a hair
merriam-webster defines never as: not ever : at no time; not in any degree : not under any condition
done splitting a hair

problems:
the player is punished for not playing the game like the writer wants them to.
stats should not in any way shape or form impact the narrative of the game. they should and in all cases but this one only affect the gameplay
no other encounter has a presence check; you can talk down hethia with or without ryn, you dont need godly composure to beat a goddess in a prolonged argument, you can be a country bumpkin and undemonify a tall dan.

the game has set a precedent for how possibly peaceful encounters at big story points should be handled and none of them have any requirements that you cant get outside of the dungeon/area they are contained in. for this if you dont have garret and havent invested in presence you have NO way of getting the peaceful solution once you enter the dungeon. you need to go back to garth for that

 

[WolframL]

The game tells you to bring Garret so if you decide to ignore it, that's really your own fault for potentially missing content.

 

[consistency]

all i can say is feel free to google the definition of "never" if you dont find the source i posted earlier credible

all of this ignores the fact that charaters who boost presence becasue they have actual use for it are entirely unaffected by this.

no matter how you try to spin it, this is gating content behind a mechanical stat in the case the player decided before even starting the quest that they wouldnt take the writers puppy out for a walk

i have heard savin say that he trusts tobs enough that he generally doesnt have to do proof reading of his stuff before it goes to the code pile so maybe thats how it slipped through but id love an answer from someone on staff about this

 

[Zavos]

The booze Garth sells can set one stat to 100% of it's quotient, allowing you to bipass these kinds of gimmicks regardless of build. I reccomend using one for a stat your not majorly invested in before starting every major dungeon.

 

[consistency]

yes let me drop my useful willpower boon and get one that does nothing for the combat encounters

does not in any way change the fact that the presence check absolutely does not need to be there and its only purpose is to gate the peaceful solution because the writer felt like it

 

[Bast]

Ye, true. The presence check should be removed and a peaceful solution should only be possible if you take Garret with you. There would be no gating behind stats then.

 

[consistency]

ill keep it short

if you dont bring garret for the quest the non-violent option with the jarl is gated behind 70% presence. the design document says to "Never, ever gate non-violent options or seduction behind Presence."

can we change one of these so that its consistent?

hell of an echo in here

you joke but that would actually be an improvement. hell walking around a dilapitated castle with a moving sack of annoyance without a choice in the matter is the whole of gweyr quest 3. you dont get asked if you want her company and there isnt a willpower check for if you manage to put on the circlets before the lureling snatches your friends away.

im only asking for something outlined in the design doc as something not to be done and stated by savin to not even be in the game be removed. i know that tobs loves his salt but im having a real hard time telling why you all feel compelled to defend his honor like this. writers can make mistakes and tobs has made plenty himself and those mistakes should be ironed out. i know that others wont be but at least this one is inconsequential enough to be removed without any issue.

may cait I AM A BIG STINKY BRAIN you all im out of here

 

[consistency]

wow forum, anyhow, get Clucked by cait all of you

 

[Bast]

I wouldn't even have known that the quest was written by Tobs if you hadn't mentioned it. I just took a jab at you because you're so fucking salty and it's hilarious.

 

[WolframL]

Well, I guess they really showed us what's what...

By the by, assuming the door hasn't hit your ass on your way out, you do realize that this has been in the game for two years now, right? And the fact that there's a Presence check as an alternative to doing what the game tells you to do has been discussed on these forums before, like here. It's not some secret that Savin doesn't know about and if they wanted to remove it from the game, they could have at any time in the hundred or so updates released since Shades of the Past was implemented. You can go be butthurt and split hairs about language somewhere else.

because you're so fucking salty and it's hilarious.

You know what goes great with salt? Popcorn. Want some?

 

[consistencu]

I wouldn't even have known that the quest was written by Tobs if you hadn't mentioned it. I just took a jab at you because you're so fucking salty and it's hilarious.

still not as salty as you when cait took lusamine away so that they could get fucked by hung, virile studs while you could only stand there, powerless to do anything but watch as your beloved deer girl was fucked stupid by the whole of frosthound before your very eyes. shit man that bit was fucking hilarious to read

again why do you all feel like defending tobs honor on this? i am not genuinely interested

 

[Bast]

still not as salty as you when cait took lusamine away so that they could get fucked by hung, virile studs while you could only stand there, powerless to do anything but watch as your beloved deer girl was fucked stupid by the whole of frosthound before your very eyes.

That's probably true.

Want some?

Sure, dude. Goes best with having the taste of my favorite writers dick in my mouth who I so viciously defend. Mmmmmmmmmmm.

 

[consistencu]

savin didnt know that the item that made a joke of the winter city kas fight was written because tobs saw that skow wrote the metal wand and neither of them realised that wands were never meant to be main hand weapons. he only learned like a month ago on discord

i simply wanted to make sure the game stays consistent with its content but i guess ill fuck off

 

[Bast]

I do see your point actually. Now that you've calmed down a little, I'll try to explain what I think might be the reason why there's a presence check implemented there:

Did you ever DM a DnD or any other Pen and Paper RPG? Sometimes the players are so "fucking" stupid that they don't take the obvious hints of the DM at all. So to get the plot back on track again or help in whichever is needed to advance the game, the DM let's the players roll their dice and that usually succeeds where the human brain behind the characters did not.

So where am I going with this?
I think the "check" in the quest is more like "Was the player smart enough to bring Garret?". And the presence check is more like your get out of jail free card.

 

[Zavos]

Tobs is fair and unforgiving in equal measure. The quests they write are absolutely some of CoC2's peak non-smut content.

 

[zagzig]

still not as salty as you when cait took lusamine away so that they could get fucked by hung, virile studs while you could only stand there, powerless to do anything but watch as your beloved deer girl was fucked stupid by the whole of frosthound before your very eyes. shit man that bit was fucking hilarious to read

again why do you all feel like defending tobs honor on this? i am not genuinely interested

Yup, this is a totally normal approach to take to asking about a quest mechanic.

 

[Raginmund]

ill keep it short

if you dont bring garret for the quest the non-violent option with the jarl is gated behind 70% presence. the design document says to "Never, ever gate non-violent options or seduction behind Presence."

can we change one of these so that its consistent?

Yeah, I'd say that would definitely be classified as an inconsistency.
However, as seen within that very same document there are also other inconsistencies, such as not being able to import a CoC 1 (original game) save into CoC2, and that whole aspect seems to have been retconned for a Fem PC from the previous game who defeated the demons. Leading to one assuming that the majority of the referencing to the first game via the checks stipulated in the document will either not be relevant, or similarly retconned.
Same with the Resolve being stipulated at maxing out at 100.

Should there be such inconsistencies? I'd say arguably no, there shouldn't be. Specifically if it's going against the primary design document.
So, that would then mean that either the design document should be subject to updates in areas where there are such inconsistencies or some changes to existing scenes / events would be in order.
Depends which route the dev team would want to undertake, but one could say that the primary design document should probably not be completely rewritten to suit the current game, as that would be doing the documentation after to suit the system being built, instead of it being done in the other order in accordance to development lifecycles. Obviously a change here and there is alright, but outright changing the primary design document in every way would definitely indicate somewhat of a fault in planning from the outset.

---

As for everyone replying to the vitriolic nature of some of the comments of the guest user, why? That's not particularly the focal point of their message, it's just to reflect their position to do with the game, the dev team and the community. Further highlighting that aspect of their posts is doing nothing but furthering their narrative to be true on that front - essentially proving their point (or at least their point from their understanding).

It would be easier to just reply to said content of what they said (point of the thread) without being offended and just reply from an objective sense. No sense in trying to justify inconsistencies either (or being subjective), as that's not exactly going to help cases on either side as well.

 

[Wint3rRyd3r]

Yo anybody else confused here? Like I agree about the doc, but this isn't really a reason to go nuclear or attack people over hot takes in another thread altogether.

Tobs is fair and unforgiving in equal measure. The quests they write are absolutely some of CoC2's peak non-smut content.

Tobs is probably a machine learning algorithm Savin got from some cyberpunk looking Roanapur place. He probably planned to use Tobs to dump work on but they got corrupted by Savin's search history.

 

[Bast]

I AM A BIG STINKY BRAIN

As for everyone replying to the vitriolic nature of some of the comments of the guest user, why? That's not particularly the focal point of their message, it's just to reflect their position to do with the game, the dev team and the community. Further highlighting that aspect of their posts is doing nothing but furthering their narrative to be true on that front - essentially proving their point (or at least their point from their understanding).

It would be easier to just reply to said content of what they said (point of the thread) without being offended and just reply from an objective sense. No sense in trying to justify inconsistencies either (or being subjective), as that's not exactly going to help cases on either side as well.

Now you got me intrigued what your response would've been.

 

[Burnerbro]

Rather than avoiding Presence checks, I'm personally more bummed out by the devs seemingly abandoning the idea of an in-game monster compendium and alchemy cook books to go with the quest log and the lore/racial codex entries. Getting the stat sheets of enemies automatically after a certain number of wins is something I'd particularly love to see in the game, especially if the Sense will ever be changed back to not be a guaranteed success again.

savin didnt know that the item that made a joke of the winter city kas fight was written because tobs saw that skow wrote the metal wand and neither of them realised that wands were never meant to be main hand weapons. he only learned like a month ago on discord

As someone who is never on Discord these days, I'm curious if the devs announced what is their plan for unconventional weapons going forward? To leave them as is, make them scale with spellpower and not be viable for weapon based powers, or something else entirely?

 

[wery12345]

Im so confused what is this item that made that fight a joke?

 

[Zavos]

As someone who isn never on Discord these days, I'm curious if the devs announced what is their plan for unconventional weapons going forward? To leave them as is, make them scale with spellpower and not be viable for weapon based powers, or something else entirely?

They'll remain as-is. Embodiment of Law, Kiyoko's personal weapon, is and shall remain the sole "mage weapon" that scales off spellpower. All other weapons, catalysts and otherwise, use attack power and relevant melee or ranged stats, and be compatible with powers based on being melee or ranged.

 

[Burnerbro]

Im so confused what is this item that made that fight a joke?

IIRC, at first it was the Resolve targetting weapon of kitsune make, and the whole of Resolve damage system got reworked in part asa result of that. Now Devine Blossom and Chrysanthemum Petal (weeb weapons both) are your best bets due to their Holy damage values that scale through the roof with crits and the right application of weapon based Powers. See Sir Gooch's thread on beating Kas solo(!).

They'll remain as-is. Embodiment of Law, Kiyoko's personal weapon, is and shall remain the sole "mage weapon" that scales off spellpower. All other weapons, catalysts and otherwise, use attack power and relevant melee or ranged stats, and be compatible with powers based on being melee or ranged.

Not how I'd prefer it done, not a huge deal overall, aside from outliers like the Winter City Kas fight. In any case, thanks for the answer.

 

[consistency]

Im not here for this topic as ive lost all interest in talking to deaf ears but for the fine folks at discord who know all and nothing this was the reason for the forbidden word. It was aimed squarely at one person and not all yall

Bye

 

[zagzig]

Im not here for this topic as ive lost all interest in talking to deaf ears but for the fine folks at discord who know all and nothing this was the reason for the forbidden word. It was aimed squarely at one person and not all yall

Bye

Totally normal to go back in someone's post history to find something from two weeks ago to spite them on, because you didn't like their answer to a question about how a quest works.

 

[Raginmund]

Totally normal to go back in someone's post history to find something from two weeks ago to spite them on, because you didn't like their answer to a question about how a quest works.

Was that entirely necessary?
Or is it totally normal for one's only contribution to a thread to be to criticize and / or ridicule the user being dogpiled with replies by other users, instead of replying to the threads original purpose and trying to contribute on that front?

The reply to the guest user seems all the more redundant considering they literally imply that they're not going to be engaging further. Almost seems like a knee-jerk response to get the last word in, to further the criticizing / ridicule. Entirely pointless to do so, in my opinion.

 

[zagzig]

Was that entirely necessary?
Or is it totally normal for one's only contribution to a thread to be to criticize and / or ridicule the user being dogpiled with replies by other users, instead of replying to the threads original purpose and trying to contribute on that front?

The reply to the guest user seems all the more redundant considering they literally imply that they're not going to be engaging further. Almost seems like a knee-jerk response to get the last word in, to further the criticizing / ridicule. Entirely pointless to do so, in my opinion.

shrugs They've stormed out and then come back in with "WELL THERE'S ONE MORE THING" before, so hey, they might do so again. I engage in good faith who seem like they're also there to engage in good faith, and have fun with the people who seem like they're there to throw out some bait and get a rise.

 

[Paradox01]

Was that entirely necessary?

Maybe not but I bet it felt good. The whole problem with this thread and the OP boils down to a common theme:

1) Newb posts about changes they want to see made
2) Regulars reply with reasons said change can't/won't happen
3) Newb won't let it go and a simple question turns into a debate
4) Regulars sigh and go, "Here we go again..." then link to loads of threads where the Devs say exactly what's already been said
5) Newb refuses to back down because they Have A Unique Perspective And Are Always Right; debate morphs into argument
6) Regulars get frustrated and tell the Newb to Suck It Up, Buttercup
7) Bystanders cry, "Was that really necessary?"
8) Regulars reply, "If you only knew..."

Wash, rinse, repeat ad nauseam.