Preview Age of Decadence R4 Preview at GameBanshee

[hiver]

Where was that? We are really interested in balancing and making skill checks more flexible where it makes sense.

It was the rich woman in the first city you can take for her jewels by implying you might get her a marriage to your imaginary master. It's especially weird because the character who failed actually got -two- checks that were (if I'm remembering right) the same two traits (I don't remember if it was Persuasion and Etiquette or Persuasion and Streetwise or something both times). I passed the first one but failed the second one. It does make the conversation keep going longer, which is legitimate, but it felt strange mechanically.

Actually, the first skill check in that sub quest is streetwise, then a streetwise/etiquette check, which you can fail but still attempt the third, streetwise/charisma check - succeed and get something nice. /so playing a praetor or other talking swindling build, like a grifter it would be expected you are either good in etiquette or have higher charisma, to combine with some streetwise (3 or 4 points). To succeed that way.
You can also "wait until dark and pay her a visit" - where the first check is sneak (i did it with 3 sneak), then you can try climbing the wall - which checks your strength/dexterity, and i think inside you run into some guards which requires another sneak check, probably higher a bit - since - guards are there.


- The only real critique of that particular quest is that all character builds that try it, get the same dialogue lines, which do sound very smarmy, or tricky, which doesnt fit a dumb assassin or mercenary with low int score and not much in the way of talking skills.

Thats the only thing i would change there. I would atleast remove those dialogue lines from character builds that dont have high enough attributes, like Int and Charisma.
So some builds wouldnt even get those same dialogue lines.

Exact same issue I had with Praetor. I was never sure whether I should be putting my points into combat skills or social ones, and the game never made it clear whether my path would lead to fighting or diplomacy. Any time it did, it was usually too late to change my point allocation (not that I would know what skill checks would be used in a given dialogue, anyway). Pretty much every time I did get into combat, I was basically screwed because my character was never a strong enough fighter to manage. You basically just have to save-scum, hoard all your points, strategically avoid certain checks so you have enough points for later ones, etc.

I find this kind of "gameplay" the ultimate in tedium and I certainly don't find it challenging in any way, except perhaps to my patience.

You just played badlly. Forcing a hybrid build too much, among other things and not trying different options. I found Teron almost the easiest to do with a Praetor, which gives you insight into characters and other plot lines you cannot see with fighting builds - and i won a fight or two too, but because i figured out a way to skew the odds in my favor - before i fought, which usual praetor skills and attributes allow nicely.

And it must be much easier now with new shield and sword tweaks.

 

[Johannes]

AoD is similar in the way that to excel at the game, you have to specialize to an incredible degree, and play the game in a very linear fashion. You don't get to play around with the game's systems, making choices as you go. You're asked: "Hammer or Sickle?" and whichever you choose you better dedicate yourself to that shit.

A choice between killing some bandits or talking your way past them isn't really a choice when you can easily do both.

Eh, it's much more of a choice in that case than when you ever have only one of those options available to a given character. Choices & consequences you know, would be cool to make those choices in the game itself and not almost purely on the skill allocation screen. Consequences for both failing and succeeding in either option should be different, of course. So the question is ( IF you're in the situation where you think you can at least realistically try either option), do I prefer to sneak past them, or kill them? Rather than simply asking, "which skillset do I have?".

Of course extreme specialization should be an option (but relatively a weak one). But now it is almost the only option unless you really know the game inside out and can min-max your way through the game just barely passing each check and battle.

Take the mentioned Praetor. "Some prefer combat, some prefer diplomacy", so if that should be taken to mean it's a binary choice instead of a balancing act... That just sucks if that really is the way you intend it.

 

[Saduj]

I definitely see both sides of the argument regarding AOD and skill checks. But my attitude is that while the game isn't perfect, I've still had a lot of fun playing it and that is all that really matters as far as my overall opinion of the game.

It is easy to fail skill checks even with a "logical" character - particularly during your first playthrough. And while those failures aren't always lethal, they can still ruin your game. If you fail a quest and don't get the associated skill point reward, its makes it that much harder for an already "flawed" character to keep up with the curve and there can be a snowball effect. If your faction tells you to screw off because you've failed, you may be able to catch on with another faction but what are the chances that your skill investment is going to apply well to a different career? I have failed quests and continued the game without feeling the need to load an earlier save but its been the exception rather than the rule. Usually if you fail, your best option is to reload or, if you really fucked up, start over. That said, it doesn't bother me that much to just load an earlier save and its really no more annoying than reloading after dying in combat, which happens way more often for me.

I do think that the more you play and the more you discover, the more you realize that the game isn't as tight on skill points as you may have originally thought (for most careers anyway). Also, it is possible to succeed with a hybrid character - how much of a hybrid depends on the career. I've played every career and haven't played one character where I focused exclusively on combat skills. Even my arena champion Merc talked his way through a couple of situations. Although, plowing skill points into combat for your weak, charismatic merchant is pretty pointless....

I also disagree with there being no sense of accomplishment for non-combat characters. The Abyss makes a loremaster feel pretty badass. My favorite ending for Maadoran is the one for a Daratan praetor. Having a talker become the Chosen One seems like it is building towards an interesting conclusion.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I do think that the more you play and the more you discover, the more you realize that the game isn't as tight on skill points as you may have originally thought (for most careers anyway). Also, it is possible to succeed with a hybrid character - how much of a hybrid depends on the career. I've played every career and haven't played one character where I focused exclusively on combat skills.

^ This.

 

[tuluse]

I also disagree with there being no sense of accomplishment for non-combat characters. The Abyss makes a loremaster feel pretty badass. My favorite ending for Maadoran is the one for a Daratan praetor. Having a talker become the Chosen One seems like it is building towards an interesting conclusion.

The only background I've finished in the super demo was a thief, and I did it with only 4 fights (I could have gone down to 2, but I meta-gamed to get extra skill points leaving Teron). The other 2 were the assassin skirmish (which you are given plenty of warning and options to prepare for), and I had to manually kill one guard when stealing from the merchants.

I generally found it satisfying to go through the text adventures. It is a different experience than most games offer, and I can see where people come from when they say it's non-gameplay, but it's still enjoyable.

 

[Dr Schultz]

AoD has the same problem that Dishonored has, in my opinion. Deus Ex is great because it hands us a lot of tools, and asks, for each obstacle: "Which tool would you like to use now?" Mastery comes from proper tool selection. Dishonored instead tells you, at the beginning of the game: "Select one tool. Go complete the game with that."

Actually, I had a more free game experience in Dishonored than in Human Revolution. I mean, the former is really an easy game. You can beat the last boss with basically just the first power unlocked. But different powers/tools have all a reason for being in the game. Simply put, they are creative tools, they are fun, and the excellent level design gives you plenty of reasons to use them. Furthermore, the non-lethal approach to the boss "battles" in DH is simply brilliant.
That being said, HR is not overall inferior. I won't never say that.

 

[Zeriel]

Yeah, I feel the opposite of that quoted sentiment. The perfect talker playthrough feels way more satisfying to me than the combat routes.

 

[crawlkill]

Actually, the first skill check in that sub quest is streetwise, then a streetwise/etiquette check, which you can fail but still attempt the third, streetwise/charisma check

My character passed the first Streetwise check and had 10 Charisma. So what you're saying is that the Streetwise/Charisma check is meaningless if you fail the Streetwise/Etiquette check--impossible to succeed. Or does AoD do a roll for those things, not just check? Or is the second Streetwise check even higher?

I dunno. I didn't hate it, but it didn't feel very...vibrant, and certainly not a fluid way to play the game. If I'm playing a social character who has literally not put a single point anywhere but social skills, I feel like I should reliably be able to pass social checks.

Might as well have one social skill in the game then.

you know, I bet an intelligently built combat character can complete every combat challenge in the game without sitting on his spare points only to spend them when he fails at an encounter. I wonder why a social character shouldn't be able to do the same in his sphere. he sure can't do anything else, I tell you what.

You just played badlly. Forcing a hybrid build too much, among other things and not trying different options.

YOU SHOULD HAVE MAGICALLY KNOWN WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED OF YOU AND BEEN WILLING TO START OVER OVER AND OVER TO ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING WHAT DO YOU THINK THIS IS A GAME THIS IS NUMBERS IN A DATABASE BITCH THEY DON'T RAISE THEMSELVES

why is it admirable to require trial and error from a player instead of just communicating requirements, you horrible, horrible little man. like, what is it about trial and error that gets you so hard.

 

[hiver]

nope, you can fail the first and succeed with the second double check, which i just did. Charisma of 7 or 8 is enough. maybe it was just a bug in your case. Or you failed really badly in etiquette. (highborn noble lady being in question and all), or streetwise was too low.
and there was no persuasion in it at all.

Its a side quest, made for several specific builds, you dont need to succeed in it in the first try.
The sneaking option can even be attempted a few times, if you manage to escape undetected at few points.

you know, I bet an intelligently built combat character can complete every combat challenge in the game without sitting on his spare points only to spend them when he fails at an encounter. I wonder why a social character shouldn't be able to do the same in his sphere. he sure can't do anything else, I tell you what.

Nope. The new skill system makes it mandatory to hoard skill points regardless, since you need to pay more skill points for each increase in a skill, 5 - 10 - 15 - 20 sp - etc.
But its actually a non issue, since if you play the game properly your character path expands, you get more options and spending a few points on few other skills tends to pay off most of the time.

Seeing how you throw out declaratory statements about quality of the game, while you cannot even remember which skills were checked in the quest that "ruined the game" for you, and seeing how you played only a little bit of the game then gave up - i dont think you should be making those definitive statements at all with any authority, or that they should be seriously considered at all.
Basically.

 

[Zeriel]

Here we have a perfect example of why modern gaming is AIDS, courtesy of Crawlkill. The player ever fails? TERRIBLE DESIGN, game should tell you at character creation exactly what to do. I suppose it's only a matter of time until every game just incorporates a link to a wiki about the perfect character builds inside the game itself.

 

[crawlkill]

"ruined the game"

1. I love that you use quotation marks around a thing I did not say or even imply. you know what quotation marks mean, right? they mean you're quoting someone. I'd like to see where I said that weird-ass conversation check "'ruined the game' for [me]" (this is lesson one in quotation marks).

2. I did not "give up" (this is lesson two in quotation marks). I completed the first city after playing through up to that point with several builds several times and was not sufficiently charmed to keep spending time on it. it's interesting that you think my complaining about an element that occurs repeatedly in the game means I didn't interact with it.

didn't my last conversation with you end in you wiping your streaming eyes because I was saying your terrible, factually incorrect point of view was wrong and that I wasn't allowed to say such hurtful things on the cerderx? here's a lesson in spiritual successors, baby: this is one to that.

Here we have a perfect example of why modern gaming is AIDS, courtesy of Crawlkill. The player ever fails? TERRIBLE DESIGN, game should tell you at character creation exactly what to do. I suppose it's only a matter of time until every game just incorporates a link to a wiki about the perfect character builds inside the game itself.

if only more games did realistic things, like having you stockpile experience points to spend them when you already knew you needed them, just like in real life and classic RPGs. I know that in Fallout and Torment I was always just sitting on my skill and stat points because just putting them into social stats didn't--didn't guarantee that I could successfully play--hang on--

 

[Lhynn]

Well, from my own experience and what ive read it goes like this.

Things that are wrong with AoD:
- Trial and error is a fundamental method of solving problems. It is characterized by repeated, varied attempts which are continued until success, or until the agent stops trying. It is an unsystematic method which does not employ insight, theory or organised methodology.
- Teleporting and moving around

Things that are right with AoD:
- Everything else.

I was wondering, are the majority of social skill checks mid and end game easy enough? like difficulty 3 and 4? if not, are all the hard ones given sufficient context for them being hard? or just a result of character progression?

crawlkill dont bother arguing with hiver, it is about the stupidest thing you can do in the codex.

 

[crawlkill]

crawlkill dont bother arguing with hiver, it is about the stupidest thing you can do in the codex.

this is only the second time I've noticed him but I'm realizing that now. did you realize his

tag is a gif? I feel like if I spend my social points right I'll see it animate.

but yeah, you've more or less got it. trial and error via reload is the only way to successfully distribute social skill points, at least in the beginning of the game, and that's not very satisfying.

 

[hiver]

quotation marks are also used to distinguish a play of words. or a expression that is an extrapolation and the speaker intends to present it as such. among other things. after all you didnt mention any other example so much, and when you did you described it wrongly.

2. I did not "give up" (this is lesson two in quotation marks). I completed the first city after playing through up to that point with several builds several times and was not sufficiently charmed to keep spending time on it.

so...you gave up. btw, nobody is forcing you to like it.

it's interesting that you think my complaining about an element that occurs repeatedly in the game means I didn't interact with it.

If you did then you would know the checks and options. And you would be able to present it correctly.

didn't my last conversation with you end in you wiping your streaming eyes because I was saying your terrible, factually incorrect point of view was wrong and that I wasn't allowed to say such hurtful things on the cerderx? here's a lesson in spiritual successors, baby: this is one to that.

No, youre hallucinating. you were just as stupid, moronic and limited as you are now, and you displayed a brain that works on two clicks, if that barely,

 

[Vault Dweller]

you know, I bet an intelligently built combat character can complete every combat challenge in the game without sitting on his spare points only to spend them when he fails at an encounter. I wonder why a social character shouldn't be able to do the same in his sphere. he sure can't do anything else, I tell you what.

Because combat is an active aspect (i.e. a mini-game to resolve conflict) and dialogues are a passive aspect. So, when you have two skills like streetwise and persuasion and you put 3 points in one and 4 points in the other, does it not imply that you might run into a situation that might require 4 and 3 or 5 and 2?

How do you suggest to handle it? We check the total on occasions but not always. Sometimes you just need to have a certain level in a certain skill and if you don't, you fail.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I was wondering, are the majority of social skill checks mid and end game easy enough? like difficulty 3 and 4?

No.

if not, are all the hard ones given sufficient context for them being hard? or just a result of character progression?

Yes.

 

[V_K]

Because combat is an active aspect (i.e. a mini-game to resolve conflict) and dialogues are a passive aspect.

So what's exactly stopping you from making dialogue aspect active too?

 

[hiver]

How do you suggest to handle it? We check the total on occasions but not always. Sometimes you just need to have a certain level in a certain skill and if you don't, you fail.

You should count total in more cases, if the player has those two skills improved.
Especially in situations and moments where its not a life or death matter.

I would even suggest allowing being proficient in two weapon types.

Plus, during character creation, highlighting primary skills for each background, as players choose any.

 

[tuluse]

Because combat is an active aspect (i.e. a mini-game to resolve conflict) and dialogues are a passive aspect. So, when you have two skills like streetwise and persuasion and you put 3 points in one and 4 points in the other, does it not imply that you might run into a situation that might require 4 and 3 or 5 and 2?

How do you suggest to handle it? We check the total on occasions but not always. Sometimes you just need to have a certain level in a certain skill and if you don't, you fail.

Have you considered letting players spend skill points while in dialog ala Vampire Bloodlines?

 

[crawlkill]

Because combat is an active aspect (i.e. a mini-game to resolve conflict) and dialogues are a passive aspect. So, when you have two skills like streetwise and persuasion and you put 3 points in one and 4 points in the other, does it not imply that you might run into a situation that might require 4 and 3 or 5 and 2?

so what you're saying is that you don't know how to write dialogue that can actually challenge a player to think about the choices they're making with respect to the person they're talking to (that is to say, render conversation 'active'), so all you know how to do is to fail players in conversation based on numbars? definitely a failure in the players, ey? if only I had known to take Etiquette 5 Streetwise 4 and not Streetwise 5 Etiquette 4! such a fool I was! apparently even with Charisma 10 Intelligence 10 a difference of a single point in one of two checked social skills at the very beginning of the game is a little too much. not sure quite what that "40% reaction modifier" is doing in that case, but that's cool, right? it's a number! at least we have numbers! you can tell it's an arrpeejee, because it has numbers!

 

[Vault Dweller]

Because combat is an active aspect (i.e. a mini-game to resolve conflict) and dialogues are a passive aspect.

So what's exactly stopping you from making dialogue aspect active too?

You can't turn dialogue skillchecks into an active aspect without turning it into a mini-game where the player is in control. Something like identifying your opponent's weaknesess (fear of this, excessive pride, greed, etc), attacking his position, beliefs, assumptions, countering his arguments, etc. It's an entirely different system and it's not for AoD.

 

[Elhoim]

I was wondering, are the majority of social skill checks mid and end game easy enough? like difficulty 3 and 4? if not, are all the hard ones given sufficient context for them being hard? or just a result of character progression?

We definitely try to give them context. For example, in the MG quest in Maadoran you are dealing with high-born nobles and big leaders of factions, which definitely increases the checks. In Teron, you mostly convince thanks to the power of your guild. In Maadoran, your words alone carry more weight, plus you are trying to convince them to go against the most powerful man on the realm.

 

[V_K]

You can't turn dialogue skillchecks into an active aspect without turning it into a mini-game where the player is in control. Something like identifying your opponent's weaknesess (fear of this, excessive pride, greed, etc), attacking his position, beliefs, assumptions, countering his arguments, etc. It's an entirely different system and it's not for AoD.

I didn't mean something that complex, it's obviously too late for that (though you probably should have thought about it at the time when it wasn't). But some simple mechanic, that would allow the player to actually influence the outcome of a skillcheck is certainly doable. Something along the lines of TToN's Effort schtick, for example.

 

[Saduj]

not sure quite what that "40% reaction modifier" is doing in that case, but that's cool, right? it's a number! at least we have numbers! you can tell it's an arrpeejee, because it has numbers!

I'm not sure if this is all it does but it negates your negative reputation with a faction. So, for example, if your reputation with House Aurellian is -12 but you have a high charisma, they would still be willing to deal with you.

With regards to combined skill checks, I can see how in certain cases it doesn't really make sense just to use the total. But a compromise could be to have a minimum for each skill and a minimum for the total. So for example if the skill check is Persuasion and Streetwise, the total of the two has be at least 8 but the minimum for each skill individually is only 3. So you can pass with 4/4 or 5/3 or 3/5 but not with a 6/2, etc.

 

[Elhoim]

You can't turn dialogue skillchecks into an active aspect without turning it into a mini-game where the player is in control. Something like identifying your opponent's weaknesess (fear of this, excessive pride, greed, etc), attacking his position, beliefs, assumptions, countering his arguments, etc. It's an entirely different system and it's not for AoD.

I didn't mean something that complex, it's obviously too late for that (though you probably should have thought about it at the time when it wasn't). But some simple mechanic, that would allow the player to actually influence the outcome of a skillcheck is certainly doable. Something along the lines of TToN's Effort schtick, for example.

Yeah, I found that an interesting idea, but in some cases might become too gamey for my taste if applied to AoD. Like, for example, lowering your charisma stat to make a more "compelling" argument? But for physical feats is a very interesting concept. In general, something we are doing is giving some small leeway in terms of dialogue checks when you have high charisma.

In the early designs, charisma was supposed to add a bonus for all speech checks, making them easier overall. We didn't like it as a blanket bonus over all checks, especially since it rendered the high level checks useless, but we should definitely give it more influence on checks overall. Plus the faction reputation right now is not very influential.