Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Micro102]

Take a look at Wabbajack's code. It transforms stuff.

[Tarran]

I'm not CK expert, but maybe you'd also be able to look at the coding of the college quest where you act as a lab rat to a Dunmer trying out new spells if Wabbajack doesn't do it. The latter ones turn you into various animals.

[kcwong]

I'm not CK expert, but maybe you'd also be able to look at the coding of the college quest where you act as a lab rat to a Dunmer trying out new spells if Wabbajack doesn't do it. The latter ones turn you into various animals.

That's probably not it. For the duration you're blocked from moving, and the camera angle seems to indicate you're just turned invisible and paralyzed, with an animal spawned close to you.

[MorleyDev]

"New engine" is a marketing term. Game engines are a very generic and ill-defined concept. You write a game, and then you refactor a lot of the code so it can be used in a later game. This alone is often enough for the developers/publishers/marketing department to say that both games run on a modified version of the same engine, but that's no more or less valid a claim than saying because you made so many changes it's a new engine.

What they have done is rewritten a lot of the code they had. They have not thrown away any of the code that worked and did what they wanted, because that would have been stupid.

[Virtz]

"New engine" is a marketing term. Game engines are a very generic and ill-defined concept. You write a game, and then you refactor a lot of the code so it can be used in a later game. This alone is often enough for the developers/publishers/marketing department to say that both games run on a modified version of the same engine, but that's no more or less valid a claim than saying because you made so many changes it's a new engine.

What they have done is rewritten a lot of the code they had. They have not thrown away any of the code that worked and did what they wanted, because that would have been stupid.

If a lot of the previous game code concerning stuff like rendering (this in particular), input/output, physics behaviour, etc. is brought back, especially if it's certain quirks characteristic to that engine in particular, then it's pretty safe to say it's the same engine. I don't think they brought back some of the same bugs and problems out of sentiment, or because that did what they wanted.

You can make something on the same but modified engine that differs a lot from the original (such as The Witcher 1 compared to Neverwinter Nights' Aurora engine), but there's nearly always certain tell-tale signs of it being the same engine (such as Geralt's inability to get over shin-high obstacles). Once you actually flaunt "new engine" as a feature, then it better be like at least twice as suitable to your needs like The Witcher 2's engine was (which by the way, bears no real resemblence to the Aurora engine and runs like ten times better).

[MorleyDev]

So would you say something powered by id Tech 3 is powered by the same engine as a game that uses id Tech 2? My point is yes and no are both pretty valid answers here. There are a lot of the same similarities and quirks, and a lot of code from id Tech 3 does come from id Tech 2, although a lot of it was also rewritten...

Heck, even if they rewrote the entire thing they'd probably have a lot of similar underlying code. A new design is usually just an old one with a few things you don't like changed.

[Leatra]

Most of the things Bethesda say are either lies or exaggerations. Some of them true but not like what we think when we first hear them. Like 'infinite quests'

Yeah, they are good at marketing.

[Moogie]

Thought this might be relevant; one of the lead concept artists for FO3 and Skyrim died today. RIP Adam.

http://www.awesome-robo.com/2012/02/farewell-adam-adamowicz-visual-mind.html

[Buttery_Mess]

Dwarf fortress has spoiled us, that's all. We want a great game nestled in a perfect fantasy simulation. Anyway, all this stuff they experimented with in a week is the sort of thing modders come out with. It's not so easy to just add stuff to a game and leave it balanced. Skyrim is pretty well balanced, all in all.

[Astral]

I found pure magicka users quite lacking on the harder difficulty levels; using a single (slowly regenerating in combat) resource for both attack and defense, often without the benefit of armor to back you up, was a bit of a pain.

[Gizogin]

I found pure magicka users quite lacking on the harder difficulty levels; using a single (slowly regenerating in combat) resource for both attack and defense, often without the benefit of armor to back you up, was a bit of a pain.

My charcter is a Breton destruction-based mage, and I know where you're coming from.  Against other mages (and archers, most of the time), I have no trouble, but really high-level melee characters are a pain.  I've found myself relying more and more on "cheap" tactics; stun-locking and overuse of the wall and rune spells.  I occasionally use companions as well, because they're good for carrying things and for taking aggro. 
I recently invested a significant amount of time to max my enchanting and smithing, so I now at least have a full set of double-enchanted dragonscale armor to fall back on.  Especially after completing the Dark Brotherhood quest line, I am also fairly good at being sneaky, which lets me offset my less-than-stellar ability to take a hit with the advantage of always getting the first strike.

[Buttery_Mess]

Pure magic use should remain effective for your level if you focus on only two combat schools (say, destruction and restoration) until you've fully perked them out. Spreading out your skill improvement across all the magic skills will reap fewer rewards against bad guys as you level up.

[lemon10]

I found pure magicka users quite lacking on the harder difficulty levels; using a single (slowly regenerating in combat) resource for both attack and defense, often without the benefit of armor to back you up, was a bit of a pain.

My charcter is a Breton destruction-based mage, and I know where you're coming from.  Against other mages (and archers, most of the time), I have no trouble, but really high-level melee characters are a pain.  I've found myself relying more and more on "cheap" tactics; stun-locking and overuse of the wall and rune spells.  I occasionally use companions as well, because they're good for carrying things and for taking aggro. 
I recently invested a significant amount of time to max my enchanting and smithing, so I now at least have a full set of double-enchanted dragonscale armor to fall back on.  Especially after completing the Dark Brotherhood quest line, I am also fairly good at being sneaky, which lets me offset my less-than-stellar ability to take a hit with the advantage of always getting the first strike.

I heard that conjuration (especially at the higher levels) is pretty beast, as is ilusion (making enemies kill each other using frenzy is always beast), while destruction scales pretty bad.

Also, since you have 100 enchanting, you should invest in a set of 100% off destruction magic, allowing you to cast all destruction spells for free.
That said, I would grind conjuration (tip: if you spam cast soul trap you can train it super fast).

[Duke 2.0]

 Illusion provides a good way of casting those top-level destruction spells with no worry. Just go invisible and cast away. And Dremora Lords hit pretty hard. By the time one falls you should be able to summon another.

[The Merchant Of Menace]

Necromancy is always fun too, especially if you do the College of Winterhold questline and get the ability to summon permanant thralls.