Game News Age of Decadence March Update

[Mrowak]

Sometimes it just denies reason how easily one can go e.g. from [Persuasion] to [Trade].

It's realistic. Maybe too realistic.

The skillcheck design is based on my professional experience. As you probably know, I talk for a living.

When you're trying to convince your 'opponent' (convince him to use your services, convinces him to sign a longer contract, convince him to keep trying after his initial campaign failed, convince him to pay what he owes you, convince him to do anything he doesn't want to do, basically), a single argument (as single check) is never enough.

Usually, your 'opponent' has 3-5 objections, reason why he doesn't want to do what you want him to do. You have to deal with all of them and use different skills: some you dismiss with strong arguments if the flaws are obvious or you have a good opening, some you bullshit through, either making him believe or doubt his own position; you can appeal to his logic, greed, doubts, fear, confidence, even beliefs that it has to work (but not all at the same time; it's not Oblivion and different people have different buttons).
Here is a simple scenario.

<Presentation>
objection #1 - I want to think about it (a weak attempt to disengage)
response: [streetwise] Think about what? It's natural to have doubts, but we've been in business for 30 years and I can assure you...
objection #2 - I'm not sure it's going to work for us (translation: I'm afraid to make a bad decision, so I'd rather make no decision at all)
response: [persuasion] *explain how the product is a perfect fit for him.
objection #3 - it sounds great but our budget is spent (fucking weasel, I can smell the money on you)
response: [trading][streetwise] We both know that money isn't an issue here. I'm afraid you're looking at it the wrong way. It's not an expense, but a short-term investment... *appeal to greed, focus his attention on the returns
etc.

I'm not saying that we designed it the best way evar, so if you have more suggestions...

Make no mistake - I am not against multiple skill-checks. It’s just, I think we've touched upon the issue that is inherently wrong in all computer games sporting any kind of influence system.

As I said before in PnP it is the player who picks the skill to use, and GM (in our case a computer) is to determine how valid it will be. In other way, it's the player that plays, whereas GM fills the role of a judge - how effective the player's skill choice (often followed by LARPing) was. Sometimes both parties find solutions to problems GM didn't even think of in the first place.

Obviously this can't really work in the context of computer games where everything is pre-set, so even if the player knew how to lead the conversation the other way, he can't because computer (our GM) won't give him an option. One could argue here - "so where is the gameplay?" The answer is - in choosing the correct mechanics to trigger the responses expected by the game. If the player put the correct amount of points into persuasion he will succeed in a number of checks. Simple enough.

The problem is twofold. Firstly, because it's not the player who's planning the conversation, he often can't know which skills will be used next. With the current system, we could use some mechanism of pre-planning here. Of course, one could argue that this mirrors a little bit the real world where you might be surprised by how your interlocutor strikes back, which - as you said - may force you to reevaluate your position and change you skill/tactics. And that alone would be fine provided that it was the player who would be allowed to select the tactics from a number of options. This would actually work well with Fallout-like system with one Speech skill for everything but multiple options in the dialogue out of which only one would bring desired results.

As it is now the player selects one option and is railroaded into the skill he might not have. It isn’t as bad as it sounds now. It needs a little bit of rebalancing so that we won’t get situation like this:

1). [Persuade/Streetwise] --> [Persuade/Trade] (3 different skills checked, 2 of which are used in option 2). regardless).
2). [Trade] --> [Persuade/Trade] (2 different skills checked)

… because the player doesn’t really get any room for maneuvers.

The current system does encourage metagaming, and there’s no real way around it at this stage, because this is the only area the player has any control - if shit hits the fan he can just reload and readjust his skill points using metagaming knowledge. Removing the tags in the situation described above won’t solve the issue - it will only cause frustration because the player won’t be able to know what went wrong - whether he even stood a chance to succeed at all. And there are few things more frustrating than failing a speech roll with your crafty but puny merchant for some obscure reason you can’t tell, and having to face 3-4 fully armoured mercs… alone.

Let’s compare this situation to PnP: if the player fails a check he will know why exactly he failed (he picked the wrong skill, or didn’t LARP convincingly enough). In AoD, after tag removal, he won’t be able to know WTF happened.

There are various mechanics you are working on that might help to alleviate “metagaming” e.g. the game recognizing bonuses from Charisma. One other good idea we’ve been discussing here is skill-synergies, like the ones you get with weapons. Actually should you decide to implement that the amount of synergy between social skills could serve as a viable indication that after e.g. [Persuasion] you can get [Trade] or [Etiquette] and their combos, but never [Streetwise] or [Disguise]. Those can help without revolutionizing the system you have too much.

However nothing, save for best writing evar can convey the difference between [Streetwise] and [Persuasion/Streetwise] if you decide to get rid of tags.

Ultimately, I would rather the game stayed as it is than remove the tags without implementing any mechanic that would allow the player a degree of control over what’s going on.

On the side note, I will repeat myself but as I see it the system you have would work truly well if at least 3 out of 5 social skills were present in all conversations and/or if each skill had a number of different options:

1) [Persuasion] AAAAA (this one will always fail)
2) [Persuasion] BBBBB (this one will bring the best results)
3) [Persuasion] CCCCC (this one will bring less-than-perfect results)

But we’ve discussed this already - it would require too much work and a revolution in the skill system, so it has no real application in AoD (1).

 

[Esquilax]

If you really prefer not to have a choice than facing the consequences, I think you are playing the wrong game.

I meant that this situation is pointless:

[dexterity] Climb the wall
[failure] You fall to your death

What is the point of this? If I'm just going to die and reload right away anyways, why present the option to climb the wall to begin with? That's not really a consequence, it's just a dead end.

 

[Excidium]

If you really prefer not to have a choice than facing the consequences, I think you are playing the wrong game.

I meant that this situation is pointless:

[dexterity] Climb the wall
[failure] You fall to your death

What is the point of this? If I'm just going to die and reload right away anyways, why present the option to climb the wall to begin with? That's not really a consequence, it's just a dead end.

No, it's great design, you goddamn casual!!

 

[Esquilax]

It's not a hard and fast rule, and I understand how there are some instadeath situations which might make perfect sense. Walking along a dusty tomb and foolishly not examining anything, then getting killed by a trap is the sort of thing that tells the player to pay attention. Giving me the option to climb a wall, then killing me after I pick it makes me think "well... that was kinda pointless".

 

[Vault Dweller]

Which wall?

 

[felipepepe]

If I'm just going to die and reload right away anyways, why present the option to climb the wall to begin with? That's not really a consequence, it's just a dead end.

If players are going to get though a maze anyway, why not just make it a straight line? All the other ways are dead ends anyway, no one will miss then...

 

[hiver]

Not a good counter example. Maze is a complex puzzle you solve. Climbing a wall is just... climbing the wall.

 

[circ]

I assume he means the wall, were there several even?, at the palace. Where if your dex is less than 8 or so, you die instantly. Think there's also a wall there that has a str+dex check, forget the outcome on that. Probably rest in peace.
There are also two guards there that use a critical strike check, that if its below 50 results in instant death. Not; you barely scratch guard with your 49 critical strike and end up in combat. But; you fuck up completely, being an otherwise well trained warrior except being a point short of lazy C&C.

 

[Arikel]

It's not a hard and fast rule, and I understand how there are some instadeath situations which might make perfect sense. Walking along a dusty tomb and foolishly not examining anything, then getting killed by a trap is the sort of thing that tells the player to pay attention. Giving me the option to climb a wall, then killing me after I pick it makes me think "well... that was kinda pointless".

As opposed to killing the player, it would make more sense to be informed that you scale partway up the wall but it is too difficult to climb, and you slide back down to the earth. You now have to find another way around the problem, and your poor original choice might get you in some kind of trouble ( extra alert guardsmen or monsters that heard the noise, or even a combat) but not result in instant death. You have consequences for your action but you have a chance to survive.

As formy impressions of the game, I found the combat enjoyably turn based but quite brutal, repositioning seems fairly pointless in that the few fights I've been in it usually takes several attempts to get away, quickly depleting your small hitpoint pool, narrowing the options down to being what strikes to use as trying to back away is too risky. I think simply reducing the amount of hp of some enemies at the start of the game might be the best way out of it, to give a chance to experiment with the combat system and build up ones player and character skill. I played a drifter character and split my skill points between block, hammers, crafting and persuasion at the beginning, (stats were 8 8 8 4 6 6), and in the merchant escort job the merchant always died within 2-3 rounds, and while my character could tank most of the damage from the two thugs(using the auxiliary armor, shield and helmet found in the inn), It was always a very near thing(I think my best result ended in me having 7 hitpoints left at the end of the fight, and i died maybe 50% of the attempts i did, which was less than 10 but maybe 6, 7 times). I also attempted the Imperial Guard bandit raid once, and again I'm not sure how I should have spent my points to survive that(at that point i'd gained only the 2 skill points for defeating the thugs on the merchant escort quest, maybe i attempted it too early). It takes so long to kill a single enemy that by the time that is done you have barely any health left to take on any other foes that might be around, and even then that's if you are lucky enough to have npc's to soak some hits for you, if it's two to one from the beginning you would almost invariably be fucked. Realism is enjoyable to a point, and I plan to try my hand at the demo some more, but i don't know even if i were to dump the extra points I had put in crafting and persuasion into my combat skills whether it would make any difference, and i think i'll try a straight up talker character instead and hopefully never have to fight at all. I guess what I'm saying is that combat in games should give an edge to the player, especially in a single character game, it doesn't have to be huge, just something a little extra over what npc's have, where as in AoD it feels that the NPC's have the advantage, having the same amount of hitpoints and skills that i do(or even better than my character's stats) while also having the advantage of numbers over me ( 2 or more of them, one shitty skilled and equipped me).

 

[DarkUnderlord]

When you're trying to convince your 'opponent' (convince him to use your services, convinces him to sign a longer contract, convince him to keep trying after his initial campaign failed, convince him to pay what he owes you, convince him to do anything he doesn't want to do, basically), a single argument (as single check) is never enough.

Usually, your 'opponent' has 3-5 objections, reason why he doesn't want to do what you want him to do. You have to deal with all of them and use different skills: some you dismiss with strong arguments if the flaws are obvious or you have a good opening, some you bullshit through, either making him believe or doubt his own position; you can appeal to his logic, greed, doubts, fear, confidence, even beliefs that it has to work (but not all at the same time; it's not Oblivion and different people have different buttons).
Here is a simple scenario.

<Presentation>
objection #1 - I want to think about it (a weak attempt to disengage)
response: [streetwise] Think about what? It's natural to have doubts, but we've been in business for 30 years and I can assure you...
objection #2 - I'm not sure it's going to work for us (translation: I'm afraid to make a bad decision, so I'd rather make no decision at all)
response: [persuasion] *explain how the product is a perfect fit for him.
objection #3 - it sounds great but our budget is spent (fucking weasel, I can smell the money on you)
response: [trading][streetwise] We both know that money isn't an issue here. I'm afraid you're looking at it the wrong way. It's not an expense, but a short-term investment... *appeal to greed, focus his attention on the returns
etc.

Ok, some kind of dialogue mini-game (in the same sense that combat is a mini-game, something "fun" in and of itself that can stand-alone, separate from the rest of the game and still be enjoyable):

We give our NPCs a range of "concerns". The PC has to successfully pass or alleviate a majority of those concerns in order to persuade the NPC to do whatever it is he wants.

So we have an NPC with the following concerns:
- Financial concerns (greed)
- Doesn't trust the PC (trust)
- "Product issues" (doubts - doesn't believe in or agree with the core aim the PC is trying to achieve)

Now let's put a number behind each of those. Let's say this NPC rates Trust as important so that's 150. His Greed and Doubts we rate at 75 each. So the total of all 3 is 300. The PC needs to score 151+ / 300 in order to convince this NPC to do what he wants.

Now "trust" might be alleviated before dialogue even starts because the PC has already proven himself in a quest for that faction or shown him to be a trustworthy game through the game (IE: Not necessarily through dialogue). That right there might give the PC 125 points already. We just 26 more and we'll pass.

I don't want to get into specifics just yet - I should be coding - but we set dialogue up such that it allows the PC to address each of the concerns (with maybe a few fake concerns thrown in).

NPC Bob: I don't believe this is affordable! Why would I pay you to do this?
- Lower the price.
- Convince the NPC that the price is worth it.
- Threaten the NPC.

We might give each of these options a score. Say lowering the price is worth 25. Convince the NPC is worth 30. NPCs also have a "how well they respond to threats" factor. Which itself might be determined by a combination of the PCs reputation (can he kill / has he killed people, is he a member of an intimidating faction this NPC fears like the Assassins Guild?). Our PC in this case is weak and has never killed anyone in-game so we try the threat option and get laughed at... Let's say that worked out to 10 points.

But because the PC failed the check, it's 10 points taken off of "his score". The score was 125 due to our rep but is now 115. So we've actually had a bad outcome and now need 36 points to succeed.

That issue hasn't been resolved though, so we have a chance to try and address it still. Threaten is removed as an option so this time the PC tries to lower the price. Success! We now score 140 out of the 151 we need. So we try to address another issue...

NPC Bob: All right, I'll take a lower price and I trust you but I'm still concerned about the product you're trying to sell me. I think it needs modifications...
- [Persuasion] It's an awesome product.
- [Crafting] I can make the modifications you want.
- Threaten the NPC [option may not be shown as we've already tried this and failed - and if we'd succeeded, you can only use it once].

In this case, the PC doesn't have good persuasion but he does have good crafting skills. With some math we value that at 30 in this instance. The PC chooses that and... wallah! Success.

The idea being each "issue" is setup in dialogue with multiple options on how to address it. As each NPC responds differently to different options (given their own values) AND these numbers can be affected outside of the dialogue (given the PCs values), it means the PC really has to play it smart to get through. If they fail and consistently fail, eventually there just won't be the possibility for them to score enough points, so the option of dialogue persuading them is eliminated.

BUT because they have multiple ways to address these issues, much like combat, there's more chance they'll get through and why not accept a "hard won success" (combat victory with 2 hp remaining) rather than going through that again? And as always, smart PCs with the right skills will get through easily (bonuses to what they score or something - a PC with super-high merchant skills might get a +50 to "lowering the price" and would pass easily in this case).

Also, because the system has some variation, there's no one single way to win. There's no guaranteed solution. So reloading won't necessarily help (although if you've stuffed the dialogue by choosing bad options and reducing your score, obviously it will - but then that's just like combat).

All we'd then need to do for each NPC is:
- Work out which concerns (of say, our 5 regular concerns) they have. Greed, Fear, Trust, Product etc...
- Work out the value this NPC puts in those concerns (Greed 75...).
- Setup their dialogue appropriately (to avoid being too gamey, this would still have to be a hand-crafted process).
- Create some math that makes this all work so that all we have to do in dialogue is pick which skill is coming into play when that line is chosen and the system handles the rest.

 

[Topher]

I hope to god that other developers are reading this thread.

 

[Infinitron]

DU is really proving himself worthy of the title these days.

 

[Marsal]

Good stuff.

1. Would you show the "numbers" or how would you comunicate success/failure of each line to the player? Just through dialogue? Would you hide partial results (via ague dialogue) and only reveal the ultimate effect conversation had on the topic?

2. Are you working for Cleve and intentionally sabotaging the release of AoD?

 

[BLOBERT]

BROS IF I REMEMBER RIGHT PST AND FALLOT DIDNT ALWAYS HAVE SKILL CHECKS IN SPPECH BUT SIMPLY MANY OPTIONS WERE JUST NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE RIGHT STAT OR SKILL

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Good stuff.

1. Would you show the "numbers" or how would you comunicate success/failure of each line to the player? Just through dialogue? Would you hide partial results (via ague dialogue) and only reveal the ultimate effect conversation had on the topic?

I wouldn't show them in the sense that combat hides numbers too. Sure, you know that you've got a Big Hammer of +1 damage, but you don't know what sort of Hammer your enemy is wielding. You also don't know his Hammer skill. All you can do is play to your strengths and try and discover your opponents weaknesses. You assume he's good with a Hammer because that's the weapon he's got, but how good is he? What are his stats? What's his Strength like? And you don't necessarily know he's about to change weapons and throw a net or a spear at you.

In part I'd assume the PC is intelligent enough in that, if you have a Gladius of Death in your inventory but your Sword skill is -50, using it won't be much use. So if you see an option to "Bribe" someone but your bribery skill is shit, well, don't expect it to work.

2. Are you working for Cleve and intentionally sabotaging the release of AoD?

No, that's Vault Dweller. You've played the demo right?

 

[mahdi]

Do a kickstarter for Fan Made Fallout.

 

[Marsal]

2. Are you working for Cleve and intentionally sabotaging the release of AoD?

No, that's Vault Dweller. You've played the demo right?

 

[Silellak]

2. Are you working for Cleve and intentionally sabotaging the release of AoD?

No, that's Vault Dweller. You've played the demo right?

I am so happy this is a GIF now.

 

[RK47]

 

[Marquess Cornwallis]

Do a kickstarter for Fan Made Fallout.

One of the more interesting discoveries related to these recent Kickstarter campaigns is that the Codex alone could easily finance a project on that (FMF) scale, if it were able to unite behind the idea and its creator. DU is one of the few people who might pull that off. (Just why would he want to do that and put up with the endless complaints of whichever $5 contributor who feels changing the colour of an NPC's socks completely ruined their expectations and original vision of the project is another question.)

 

[RRRrrr]

You faggy consoletards. Yes, I am talking to you, Codex! My brother hasn't playing almost anything besides DOTA and a bit of Skyrim in the last 3-4 years and no turn based RPGs and he liked the game A LOT. He had no problems with combat whatsoever. And that is a person with almost no experience in the genre. I didn't have any problems with it at all, and I've never considered myself hardcore. My point is that the game has an actual possibility of appealing to a much larger audience than initially anticipated. Not to mention that it will probably sell a million copies on steam when the price drops. And we'll definitely rape metacritic with high scores

You, codex, have gone soft. Dragon Age GOTY, really? SO HARDCORE! What's next, The Witcher 2 GOTY? Oh, wait...

Iron Tower did a superb job, and I think too few people are said this right now. The only think I dislike is the teleportation thingie, but that is a minor thing. Not to mention it cuts out pointless gameplay. A better transition might be nice.
As for the game...when is it coming out? Thursday this year or in Thursday 2013? 2015?

 

[fizzelopeguss]

2. Are you working for Cleve and intentionally sabotaging the release of AoD?

No, that's Vault Dweller. You've played the demo right?

 

[hiver]

dialogue mini-game (in the same sense that combat is a mini-game, something "fun" in and of itself that can stand-alone, separate from the rest of the game and still be enjoyable):

Holy cr..!

Well, that is very, very, very.... good.
The question is can IT and Vince engage in such a big change to what they already have...
Seeing how we are still in beta level for the Demo.... it doesnt seem impossible. But they would know best.

I would just add one very important thing.

Verily, not all dialogue with all NPCs needs to be that complex. Most, as we see in the demo itself, will be quite pleased or persuaded with only one of those skills.
Some NPCs will take just a bribe, some will bend by just being threatened or lore-d over, and so on.

Some will require combination of the two skills. And Only rare NPCs will require the full dialogue combat of this heavy style, yes?
Take into consideration that different NPCs will require different levels of skill persuasion, i.e. some will be easier to persuade then others - MEANS there is no need to make humongous work out of it all.

You faggy consoletards. Yes, I am talking to you, Codex! My brother hasn't playing almost anything besides DOTA and a bit of Skyrim in the last 3-4 years and no turn based RPGs and he liked the game A LOT. He had no problems with combat whatsoever. And that is a person with almost no experience in the genre. I didn't have any problems with it at all, and I've never considered myself hardcore. My point is that the game has an actual possibility of appealing to a much larger audience than initially anticipated. Not to mention that it will probably sell a million copies on steam when the price drops. And we'll definitely rape metacritic with high scores

SHHHH!!!
We are polishing here....!

 

[J_C]

You faggy consoletards. Yes, I am talking to you, Codex! My brother hasn't playing almost anything besides DOTA and a bit of Skyrim in the last 3-4 years and no turn based RPGs and he liked the game A LOT. He had no problems with combat whatsoever. And that is a person with almost no experience in the genre. I didn't have any problems with it at all, and I've never considered myself hardcore. My point is that the game has an actual possibility of appealing to a much larger audience than initially anticipated. Not to mention that it will probably sell a million copies on steam when the price drops. And we'll definitely rape metacritic with high scores

You, codex, have gone soft. Dragon Age GOTY, really? SO HARDCORE! What's next, The Witcher 2 GOTY? Oh, wait...

Iron Tower did a superb job, and I think too few people are said this right now. The only think I dislike is the teleportation thingie, but that is a minor thing. Not to mention it cuts out pointless gameplay. A better transition might be nice.
As for the game...when is it coming out? Thursday this year or in Thursday 2013? 2015?

Nice April's Fool joke.

 

[Brotherman Bill]

Yeah lets make an entire new conversation system that DU dreamed up in fever addled dreams and is never tested or even worked at, to this almost ready to release game.

Seriously who thinks this is realistic, or even cool? Who brofists this shit? I mean I know that the codex is for fags but still...

 

[Shiki]

You, codex, have gone soft. Dragon Age GOTY, really? SO HARDCORE!

I see what you did there.