New Presence system in TFN 1.4

Zer0Morph wrote:

I'm surprised by the lack of comments on the video. I guess that means everyone.... liked it....? Errrr... maybe not?

Looks pretty good to me. Also I noticed Nines gave you his cutscene dialogue because you sequence broke on that character.

Griff wrote:

Zer0Morph wrote:

I'm surprised by the lack of comments on the video. I guess that means everyone.... liked it....? Errrr... maybe not?

Looks pretty good to me. Also I noticed Nines gave you his cutscene dialogue because you sequence broke on that character.

Haha yeah, I jumped maps.

I am about to watch it... Comments pending.

For me, the particles effect is a lot more annoying than I expected, but I usually don't play around with Presence above the first or second level, so it's not a big deal. It also won't make me use the discipline more often, but then again, I pretty much play the game only with one character archetype anyway, so I wasn't really going to complain if you hadn't asked for more feedback.

Eliza wrote:

For me, the particles effect is a lot more annoying than I expected

Yeah, that's why I made it so you can switch views and turn the particles off. Very easy to do.

I agree with Eliza. The 1st person presence particles are annoying. But since I never start dialogs in first person, it doesn't matter.

It's not part of this topic, but the paricles are the reason I never use disciplines along with guns.

Childe of Malkav wrote:

It's not part of this topic, but the paricles are the reason I never use disciplines along with guns.

I'm actually in the process of removing all 1st person particles for all of the disciplines, except those that change your vision regardless. I already took care of Fortitude and Auspex for 1.4 and I'm going to remove Presence as well. I don't like the particles with guns either, seeing auras through objects using Auspex or Obeah is enough for me and seems that we agree on this.

Zer0Morph wrote:

Childe of Malkav wrote:

It's not part of this topic, but the paricles are the reason I never use disciplines along with guns.

I'm actually in the process of removing all 1st person particles for all of the disciplines, except those that change your vision regardless. I already took care of Fortitude and Auspex for 1.4 and I'm going to remove Presence as well. I don't like the particles with guns either, seeing auras through objects using Auspex or Obeah is enough for me and seems that we agree on this.

That'd be really great. I like the effects in 3rd person, but in 1st person, they're really distracting and just take up way too much space on the screen. It's a bit disorienting, really, like VR sickness. (Imagine playing this game with VR goggles in 1st person. Ew. )

Hmm, maybe change the "resist" line to something like "not affected". After all means you (the character) might not even know why it works on some and why not. Looks lore friendly enough to me then. The "resisted" kinda bugs me though.

PS: On a sidenote. Having a stats at 5 is super powerful at p&p. 4 dots mean you have a title. 5 you are more than an absolute expert. Whenever I see a difficulty of 10 I just think its way off. But thats with all feat requirements of 10. Maybe it needs to be done, because you get way too many XP in the game. It just feels odd. I know this can be influenced with disciplines, but still. Unarmed of 10 would be Arnold Schwarzenegger paired with Bruce Lee in one person (some might say he would have 6 points in Brawl even though its "impossible" for a human to attain)

Zer0Morph wrote:

Childe of Malkav wrote:

It's not part of this topic, but the paricles are the reason I never use disciplines along with guns.

I'm actually in the process of removing all 1st person particles for all of the disciplines, except those that change your vision regardless. I already took care of Fortitude and Auspex for 1.4 and I'm going to remove Presence as well. I don't like the particles with guns either, seeing auras through objects using Auspex or Obeah is enough for me and seems that we agree on this.

Actually, would it be possible to shift it so that you don't see auras through walls in one view(first, probably), but can with the other(third)? That would remove the issue Malkav, and likely others, has with raising Auspex up, without nerfing it.

I'll admit, I'm throwing science at the wall here, and seeing what sticks. Don't break yourself over this, by any stretch.

Eliza wrote:

That'd be really great. I like the effects in 3rd person, but in 1st person, they're really distracting and just take up way too much space on the screen.

I think you, me, and Malkav all agree on this. 3rd person particles are fun but 1st person is really distracting. In fact, the more I look at the particle effects in dialogue for Presence, the more I enjoy turning it off. But honestly, since I always play in 3rd person, Malkav and I won't see them unless we manually switch views to turn it on. Having the particles on is very immersive though, so I like having the option.

Kyoden wrote:

Hmm, maybe change the "resist" line to something like "not affected". After all means you (the character) might not even know why it works on some and why not.

Isn't resisting and not affected mean the same thing?

Kyoden wrote:

Whenever I see a difficulty of 10 I just think its way off.

Remember, this is a video game port of the pnp game. We have to take some liberties to make it work. We do what we can but some things we just have to let go of. After all, Troika makes you an Elder in a week's time.

malak wrote:

Actually, would it be possible to shift it so that you don't see auras through walls in one view(first, probably), but can with the other(third)? That would remove the issue Malkav, and likely others, has with raising Auspex up, without nerfing it.

I don't know if that would be possible or not, I can look into it, however remember that the distance of seeing people through walls is REALLY short for Auspex 1, and still pretty short for Auspex 2. It doesn't start getting long range until 3-5.

Zer0Morph wrote:

malak wrote:

Actually, would it be possible to shift it so that you don't see auras through walls in one view(first, probably), but can with the other(third)? That would remove the issue Malkav, and likely others, has with raising Auspex up, without nerfing it.

I don't know if that would be possible or not, I can look into it, however remember that the distance of seeing people through walls is REALLY short for Auspex 1, and still pretty short for Auspex 2. It doesn't start getting long range until 3-5.

I agree with you, I just remember Malkav complaining about seeing through walls when he was trying to aim his gun, and had that "A-ha" moment that might solve it. Another way to go would be to limit first person view (the one I assume most people use for guns) Auspex Range to that for 1, and unlimited for third person. That seems like backwards thinking to me (first person view should see further, IMO, but that would be contrary to the objective here.), but might work.

This is basically my attempt to make Malkav train up to rank 5 Auspex, since it is his clans best discipline.

malak wrote:

This is basically my attempt to make Malkav train up to rank 5 Auspex, since it is his clans best discipline.

I really don't understand why he has such problems using Auspex. It must be his lunacy because before the revamp of Auspex, I'd use it just so I could see where my enemies were to get a beat on them through walls, I love it, and the part I love so much, he hates the most. I don't get it.

"Resisting" to me is, that I know that something didn't work on e. Like a voice in my head that I can shake off.

"Not working" "not affected" doesn't necessarily mean that. Whatever the reason is that it doesn't wok its unknown to me. This could also imply that the other person doesn't know it as well.

*puts on linguist glasses*
"To resist" is a verb that implies action, e.g. struggling against a hold. Thus, it also implies that the person who is resisting is aware of something that is affecting them, even if they fight against it unconsciously. In our case, that would mean that, for example, Ming Xiao notices that she is being manipulated, even if she doesn't understand exactly how, and makes an active effort to fight this.
"To be unaffected" is the passive form combined with an adjective and does not imply action at all, e.g. being unaffected by cold weather. It could imply that the person who is unaffected does not even notice that there is something going on and does not need to resist anything, as they are simply 'immune' to whatever is trying to bother them. In our case, that would mean that, for example, Smiling Jack is unaware that somebody is attempting to influence him, and even though he might notice that it is the specific discipline Presence being used on him, he does not need to take any action at all to avoid being affected by it.

*takes of linguist glasses*
While I would agree that the best possible wording would be passive, like 'is unaffected by', this is a really minor thing that probably only absolute lore nerds would even think about. The meaning is essentially the same - Presence doesn't work on this person - but it's a subtle difference in implication - active resistance or passive uncaring. I could go on and on about this, but I'm probably the only person who finds stuff like this interesting because I'm studying languages, so I'll spare you the details and technical terms.

*hugs Eliza*

I am not the only Grammar Nazi here!

*nuzzles and rolls over*

Passive form is better and more lore friednly.
Yes, I am a nerd.

*rubs Feral's belly*
Did you think you were? I'm studying two languages and learning a third along the way, how could I not be a huge linguistics nerd?

If Eliza hadn't posted first, I would have said the same thing about resisting and not being affected. And yes, "not affected" is the better choice. And you don't have to be a lore or grammar nerd to see that, 'cause I'm neither.

I can easily make the appropriate changes to reflect this, it would take 2 seconds to do.

Another option would be this, what if the player didn't even try to use it in dialogue against the Elders, like what Yami was saying. I could make it so a message appears but no particles or sound play, and no bonus. When entering dialogue, a message at the top would say something like "I better not use Presence against this NPC" or something to that effect.

Which way sounds better? 1.) Presence doesn't effect this NPC or 2.) I better not use Presence against this NPC

Zer0Morph wrote:

I can easily make the appropriate changes to reflect this, it would take 2 seconds to do.

Another option would be this, what if the player didn't even try to use it in dialogue against the Elders, like what Yami was saying. I could make it so a message appears but no particles or sound play, and no bonus. When entering dialogue, a message at the top would say something like "I better not use Presence against this NPC" or something to that effect.

Which way sounds better? 1.) Presence doesn't effect this NPC or 2.) I better not use Presence against this NPC

I vote "Presence is not tolerated by elders", or "Presence is not tolerated here" for a more generic message.

Except there's no way for the PC to know who is and isn't Elder :3

Tbf I think you could have presence affect everyone, because unlike Dominate (cf Therese), Presence affects everyone the same. Of course some strong-willed characters can resist it better.. But age/generation isn't a variable (even if older kindred are more willed :p)

Claudia wrote:

Tbf I think you could have presence affect everyone, because unlike Dominate (cf Therese), Presence affects everyone the same. Of course some strong-willed characters can resist it better.. But age/generation isn't a variable (even if older kindred are more willed :p)

YamiRaziel is pretty hell bent on thinking that it's rude to use Presence on an elder, but you bring up a good point, how would the player know who's an elder and who's not.

Of course it's rude, but how do they know it's rude? I mean, a scum rude toreador can tell "what's the word on the street" to Strauss and call him Max

The PC is just ignorant as hell.

Maybe, in a perfect world, have a "do I use Presence with this NPC?" and have the player choose. Of course some NPCs are more susceptible to it (it will or won't work), and some of those will (or won't) notice the effects and react to it.

Presence is a subtle discipline because it's just an extension of someone's charisma. What makes you think someone notices the difference between natural and unatural charisma?

Griff wrote:

Zer0Morph wrote:

I can easily make the appropriate changes to reflect this, it would take 2 seconds to do.

Another option would be this, what if the player didn't even try to use it in dialogue against the Elders, like what Yami was saying. I could make it so a message appears but no particles or sound play, and no bonus. When entering dialogue, a message at the top would say something like "I better not use Presence against this NPC" or something to that effect.

Which way sounds better? 1.) Presence doesn't effect this NPC or 2.) I better not use Presence against this NPC

I vote "Presence is not tolerated by elders", or "Presence is not tolerated here" for a more generic message.

Presence is not tolerated here sounds perfect to me.

Claudia, I think that even if the player is not sure who's an elder and who's not, they would still know that using presence against the Prince or the Primogens is... unwise.

I'm not as knowledgeable about the subject as you're Claudia, but I always considered Presence a sort of a too strong of an influence. For example, if you're an elder and you realize that somebody is making you feel irrational towards them, then you could suspect they are using Presence successfully on you. Aren't elders supposed to be experienced with this discipline, especially the ones who have mastered it?

I would go with the "not affected". *vote*