If you don't agree with that, stop saying you do.
Ahem:
Again, that is apparently "most of what you wanted to say".
I didn't say "I agree completely with everything Marsal said." Maybe in future I should avoid saying I generally agree with someone in case you convince yourself you're arguing with him instead of me?
Grunker, seriously, go look up the definition of "most". At least 80% of his post was about there being fundamental flaws in the game. If you genuinely think Marsal said "most" of what you wanted to say - and your defense is this - then you've got fucking rocks in your head.
Marsal points at a problem and I completely agree that it is a problem. What they should have done instead of make save-or-die checks was make save-or-something-bad-happens checks.
Which, incidentally, would be a re-design.
But to the game's defense, the parts I've played through so far have had both. The first is bad-bad-bad, because it is the core part of what is problematic. But it doesn't make the game unplayable;
Oh please, whoever said the game was unplayable? The only person who ever threw that around was you. And as I've said, if the game is perfectly playable, why are we even bothering about this "less of a problem" or "not really a problem, problem" or however you're defining it?
No really, explain clearly why this is "big enough" of a problem that it needs to be fixed at all. Because what, you're upset that peoople aren't spending their points immediately and they might :shock: reload and change their minds?
The band-aid won't work. And in fact it will make the problem more pronounced. I've already explained why here and here.
And I explained to you why you were wrong just a few posts below - since then you've refused to discuss the matter at hand. So it's your turn to answer my points I believe.
You mean this? You either have a problem with the English language, you're trolling me or you're completely fucking dense. My money's on the latter.
Here is your reply to me pointing out why the bandaid solution won't work and will in fact exacerbate the problem:
1. Your first chunk is talking about how it's a problem but it's not really enough of a problem that needs the game to be re-designed.
2. Again, you support forced SP expenditure
because you got through the game without saving any SPs at all.
...and that's it. Literally, that's all you've got.
You didn't answer why people are choosing to meta-game in this manner. Instead, you're actually
ignoring why they're meta-gaming in this manner and instead preventing them from doing it - because, you know, you got through ok.
Why did you propose the strawman that people wouldn't reload 10 hours of game-play with the "forced SP expenditure" system when there isn't even 10 hours of game-play in the demo for them to reload? And yet they're reloading, save scumming and hoarding SP?
Why do you seem to admit that in AoD, those crucial couple of skill-points could make a difference to the game's binary skill checks if invested in the right area (which, duh, is why people are doing this in the first place), then seem to argue that a few skill points doesn't matter?
Grunker, why are you so upset that
some people are choosing to save their SPs (to get around the game's binary skill checks and lack of information) rather than spending them immediately? Why do you feel that these players need to be forced to spend their SPs the minute they get them? Does hearing about other people playing games differently to how you do upset you that much?
If you have just an ounce of willingness to actually listen, do so now:
The problem, in my mind, is as follows: The game is structured around giving players an unperfect playthrough - at least, that's what will happen to most who play it blindly. This entails not doing certain quests etc. The problem here is that save-scumming breaks this. It encourages you not to use your skill-points in order to circumvent the game's mechanics so that you can blast skill-points into important skills when it becomes necessary. This is a big problem with game design, because a) player's shouldn't be incentivised to do something they don't really feel like doing (saving up skill points) - it's like the "stockpile ammunition" problem of shooters (nobody wants to, most do it), b) It's a major design flaw in my mind because it's completely random - if not all checks have the same sort of relevancy/balance, then how do you account for that in chargen? and lastly c) The parts that are basically "save-or-die" are obviously broken as fuck.
I took the liberty of high-lighting some key points.
So we accept that we have a game which has some
seriously broken design. No ifs, no buts. And please don't try and now argue that this problem isn't a major issue. You just said as clear as day "big problem", "major design flaw" and "broken as fuck" so for the love of all that is holy, stop your bullshit attempts at weaseling around that. Stop pretending you think this "isn't that much of a problem". You cannot on the one-hand use any of those words, only to turn around on the other hand and say "Oh but it's not that bad!! No really!!".
Now here's the truth: You don't actually understand what the problem is (which to be honest, given what you've said, unsaid, counter-said and then contradicted yourself saying, isn't surprising). Which is why you keep tripping over yourself about whether or not you agree with what Marsal said, most of what Marsal said or only 1/10ths of it or whatever.
This is what
you think the problem is "The problem here is that save-scumming breaks this". You believe the problem is save-scumming (or SP hoarding) itself.
This isn't what Marsal said. Not in any way what-so-ever. Not even 1/10ths or what he said agrees with this being "the problem". Nor is it what I believe the problem is.
Again, the problem as Marsal defined it is: "In AoD you have a bazillion skills that are not clearly defined and overlap in their use and usefulness. The quests can be resolved in any number of different ways, with little room for improvisation or player agency. It's essentially a case of tyranny of choices and having no ability to influence their effects after they have been made, without save scumming. [...] Now make a thief? You'll want a weapon skill, a defensive skill, sneak, steal, lockpick, traps, streetwise, maybe critical strike, maybe disguise, maybe alchemy. That's about 7+ skills. To make matters worse, you can't improvise with the sneak skill, either you pass the check or you die."
Let's break that down:
- The skills are not clearly defined. They overlap in their use and usefulness. Multiple skills do the same thing, or at least it seems that they should. So the player is uncertain on which skill to actually put their points into (notice how forced SP expenditure won't help this and will actually exacerbate the problem).
- The quests can be solved in different ways, but only if you've got "the magically correct" skill at the time. You have no idea of knowing what's coming up and again, don't know what to invest into until after the fact (once again, forced SP expenditure doesn't help the player get around this).
- There is no room for error. If you fail a skill check - such as you're short a point on something- YOU DIE! You get dumped in impossible combat situations and are forced to reload. There's no "run away" option (Again, how is forced SP expenditure actually going to help solve this?).
The problem is, the player
wants to role-play the thief or the diplomat or the whatever
but the game doesn't let him. He only finds out
after the fact that instead of putting points into Buttkissing, he should've put them into Cocksucking instead. They seemed like the same skill but the check he encountered used the other one and the gamer had no way of knowing which one to go for... or he just needed a couple of more points put into it and then his DIE encounter would've turned into a WIN and he'd have been able to get through.
So as I've said already, save-scumming is not
the problem. It's
the solution to the game's deep design flaws in that it dumps you into "do or die" situations with no escape. How is the thief to know that his sneak wasn't high enough unless he tries to sneak
and then finds out after the fact that it failed?
Now crucially, Marsal points out that exact fore-knowledge is not the solution here (IE: Telling the player that a "sneak check Level 50 is coming up"). The real problem is that
there's no way out. There's no "soft landing". It is literally, "oh shit, I died". And the only way for the thief to get passed that check (as a thief, which he's role-playing) is to go back and take those points out of whatever and put them into whatever else.
That, my friend, is the problem. Now let's look at the proposed solutions...
Now, the solutions are as follows: You can redesign the whole game, but is not an option here, and the game is fun and playable even without a fix, so what CAN we do. Well, we can solve problem a) by introducing Marsal's "spend-skill-points immeadiately"-fix. This will have the byproduct of partly fixing problem b), because players will now HAVE to accept unperfect playthroughs (which is arguably what the game intends to anyway, given the C&C-angle) or reload a million years back in time.
Ok first point, I really like how you completely over-exagerate
everything. "I didn't say the game was unplayable!" (when no-one did). "They'd have to reload 10 hours!!", and now "a million years!".
Now let's be realistic here. In AoD, there are some crucial times when having 5 or so extra points in something comes in very handy indeed. Not necessarily 10 or 20 points, just those few. There's also
no reason to spend every skill point the minute you get it because for the whole, it doesn't matter
except for those crucial PASS or DIE dialogue situations where it becomes critical.
On the other hand, there's also combat which a lot of people are struggling with. If you lose combat, you DIE. So you have to either find a way to WIN that combat encounter (which someone role-playing a Mercenary might want to think they should be capable of doing, for example) or you need a way to avoid it. Both scenarios mean having the right skills. You either need the right level of Cocksucking to pass the dialogue check... or you need to throw more points into Block, take the opportunity to craft the right set of armour and grab yourself a two-handed or a long-range weapon and stock up on extra nets. The problem is (and again, this is the actual problem) the player doesn't know
any of this information until you encounter the WIN OR DIE situation.
Once you've encountered it, you can spend appropriately and alter your character as necessary.
This of course, is best fixed by
re-designing those parts and making it some-what clearer to the player that a WIN OR DIE situation is coming up (sorry but some vague mention that "something doesn't seem right" doesn't cut it) or by providing an "out" for those DIE situations (IE: Other than re-loading and picking the "avoid" option because again, that's meta-gaming the system).
Providing an "out" isn't that simple though again because of the way the game has been designed. If you're a thief and you're investing in sneak - but you just don't have enough to pass that dialogue skill check - then you're dumped straight into a combat situation that you can't win. The game basically needs to be re-designed so that it doesn't "dump you right in it" (perhaps by going back to a more traditional sneak system) and that's a major re-design.
So if we take Marsal's band-aid and apply it, what happens?
The player is dumped into WIN OR DIE situations that they can't escape from. Given that, the only way through is to re-load. All your system does is force them to reload much more of the game than they otherwise would have, had they been able to hoard skill points. Because let's face it (to borrow your over-exageration) re-loading 10 hours is better than having to start all over again and re-play through 30 hours just to get to the same point.
C) we obviously can't fix, but insofar as it's a part of b) (accept unperfect playthroughs) it doesn't matter - people will have to avoid those quests.
Notice how I didn't talk in absolutes? I mean, your claim is that the game is completely unplayable,
Quote where I said the game was unplayable.
No really, go look for the word "unplayable". That was - and always has been - a strawman you threw up. It's never been anything I've actually said. Again, you seem to be having issues actually understanding what you're reading.
yet plenty people play it and find it fun. That doesn't counter your argument of course, but it would sure be nice if you could discuss it from a more practical stand-point where a flaw in design didn't mean the end of the game.
Right now, the game is too binary. As you've pointed out, it's either all combat or all talky. Not even a little bit of both? It also means the game is too harsh and unforgiving on players who dare to put a point in anything other than their focus.
Unless of course you are firm in the belief that you won't have any interest in the final product under any circumstances.
Well to be honest, I've never been particuarly interested in "choose your own adventure" books with broken combat systems (seriously, this combat system has been tested, right? Did none of the testers bother to try Dodge?). I also prefer RPGs with world exploration and a point to walking around towns (you know, useful loot you can find, stuff you can steal from people - using non-combat skills in the game-world rather than just in dialogue). And yeah, magic dialogue teleportation... In Oblivion they called that fast-travel and AOD's method
is actually worse.
