Obsidian's Pillars of Eternity [BETA RELEASED, GO TO THE NEW THREAD]

[coffeetable]

The mod who renamed the thread should consider himself a retard. It this supposed to be funny? Or are you turned on by giving this thread different names?

lol

 

[Roguey]

I'd donate quite a sum of money to kickstart Fuck You: Suck My Dick: Josh Sawyer's Personal Dream RPG Experience. Not too large though. Triple digits at best.

Infinitron obviously he was talking about player expectations. Some people really like classless systems, Josh doesn't seem to have a preference.

Sim-slams:

I'm pretty sure I have never even tried to measure encumbrance in any RPG because seriously why would I do that to myself. next I'd be counting arrows

which has goofier simulationist mechanics: pendragon or hârnmaster

Hârnmanor is some serious win

helllllll yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhh

http://www.columbiagames.com/resources/4001/harnmaster-combattables.pdf

lol that hârnmaster 3rd ed (what that table is from) is considered the dumbed down/faster paced version compared to hârnmaster gold

eat shit GURPS

DERPS

Also it turns out that some game-developers are frame-blind

60fps and below, i usually guess within 5fps of the actual framerate, so it blows my mind when i work with game devs who can't tell the diff between 60 and 30. on a few games i've worked on, we've frame-unlocked the rate to goof around in some room, shown it to people on the team, and had a bunch of them say, "what am i supposed to be noticing?" other people walk in, look at it for a second and go, "holy shit that's running at 60".

I bet Avellone's someone who can't tell the difference.

 

[Grunker]

DERPS

them's fightin' words, newbie

 

[Rivmusique]

I have had the pleasure to work on a project where I just got to do whatever I wanted and that was pretty cool.

What is that?

I don't know how accurate that "what IE stuff people care about" is. I'm sure some nutjobs are pissed about halflings and orcs being cut, just as other nutjobs would care if dwarves and elves were gone. And this talk of "I know better ways to do this, but I feel I need to do it this way" is disheartening.

 

[Infinitron]

Some people really like classless systems, Josh doesn't seem to have a preference.

Here it is: http://pedevtracker.azurewebsites.net/Post/View/30

Posted by J.E. Sawyer on 9/15/2013 9:59 PM
I think classes can be easier for players to "get" than a sea of potential skills/abilities/etc. With a lot of classless systems (especially really rules-intensive ones like GURPS), you may have to hunt around to figure out if you can build a certain character concept. Classes present you with rough character archetypes up front so it's easier to just drop in for newer players (IMO).

When I play, I prefer to use classless systems. However, in my experience with classless systems, I've still found that if tactical combat is "a thing" of the game, it needs to receive a lot of design attention so players can make use of it. GURPS pays a lot of attention to combat mechanics and leans more heavily on simulationism (albeit, sometimes in odd ways) so building a combat monster is not too difficult. However, a lot of the tactics for those combat monsters wind up looking pretty similar, so it doesn't necessarily encourage particularly diverse gameplay (again, IME, and GURPS is very large). In a game like Vampire, tactical combat really isn't "a thing" so having light rules doesn't matter that often IME.

Retrieved on: 9/16/2013 at 8:04 PM Source | Permalink

Just give up, you were wrong here. The man prefers classless. Sure, he thinks it's harder to balance, but he's not the type to back away from a challenge.

 

[Sensuki]

I bet Avellone's someone who can't tell the difference.

I'd say you'd be right.

PE better run at 120 fps

 

[FeelTheRads]

DERPS

them's fightin' words, newbie

He could fix GURPS too, I bet. But...

I before PoE is just "good for what it is", because Sawyer couldn't do everything he wanted to.

It's not like he excused in a similar fashion all the games he worked on.

 

[DraQ]

Dunno if you guys noticed but Josh posted tons more in that thread.

Example (speaking about the problems with making STR a requirement for using weapons): http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64712-attribute-theory/?p=1401049

The other problem it creates is tiered weapon types, which narrows certain classes/builds into using the higher tier weapons exclusively. A/D&D has never had particularly great weapon balance, but the contrast became stark in 3.X and even more clearly delineated in 4E. No fighter would regularly use a Simple Weapon in 3E because its Martial equivalents are almost universally superior. And of course, in 4E, no fighter would regularly use a Simple over a Military or a Military over Superior assuming they can take the requisite feat. More than even 3.X, 4E funnels characters into lifelong equipment types based around what's ideal for their stats. If you're wearing some form of hide armor and using a bastard sword at 5th level, you're probably going to be using more magical versions of the same stuff at 10th, 15th, and 20th level.

The reason I think this is not particularly great is because it effectively removes (or at least drastically simplifies) decision-making for the character. Entire classifications of weapons and armor wind up essentially being junk choices. E.g. medium armor in 3.X is a plague upon almost any character. If you have no Dex bonus, you're going to wear heavy armor. Once you get full plate, you're going to wear full plate forever if at all possible. If you have a high Dex bonus, you're going to wear light armor. Once you get a chain shirt, you're going to wear a chain shirt forever if at all possible.

I put STR reqs on weapons in F:NV to give more importance to STR, but I think it messed with the balance of weapons. High STR weapons didn't just have to be balanced relative to weapons in their tier. They had to be balanced relative to other weapons in their tier as superior weapons because they required an investment from the player to properly use them.

Strength is one of the most difficult attributes to find immediate and universal applications for that don't wreak havoc with other game systems. Damage superficially makes sense but makes less sense when you think about attacks that aren't powered by the physical strength of the wielder.

As I wrote earlier, these are what we're working with now. As we keep testing and listening to feedback, we may move them around.

Josh is a bloatfag.

Weapons should be built around purposes, not just damage output.
Characters should be built around weapons they want to specialize in.
Make a fighter that isn't terribly strong but is smart and agile, and he will probably pwn other fighter builds in single combat with right weapon, but may encounter trouble when pitted against, say, giant mudcrab.
Make an oaf with big hmmr, and he will probably crack the mudcrab open in a single turn or whatever despite the other type of fighter being able to stab him dead with little effort.

Specialization should be just that - specialization - instead of just pwning moar.
The only tiering should be material/craftsmanship/enchantments in each weapon class, barring maybe impromptu combat implements, but even in case of those reforged scythes were fucking brutal.

I believe every attribute, if dumped, should harm every build because there are two logical consequences if they do not:

1) If I can dump without significant consequence, it is likely (though not necessarily true) that bumping it is similarly without consequence. This means character concepts that bump that attribute are inherently worse off for having done so.

2) If one class can dump stats without significant consequence and others cannot, in practice that class has more attribute points to play with. E.g. fighters vs. monks and paladins in 3.5. When one class has abilities that derive benefits from a narrow range of attributes, it becomes difficult to balance their powers against classes that derive benefits from a broader range of attributes.

True dat.

No you dumb, dumb man. It is not the same once you get the bare minimum to swing it, because stuff with lots of endurance can take a lot of punishment, ergo, the harder you swing the faster that stupid big thing is going to fall down. Take a hammer to a car and the strength of the people hitting it does matter.

I have limited experience with smashing people's cars, but in combat you aren't just hitting inanimate object as hard as you can and even if you want to hit an inanimate object as hard as you can technique can be far more important than raw strength - ever chopped wood?

What i dont agree with is bears that are nobel in chemistry.

Wat.

Touch AC.

What does touch AC have to do with anything?

Some attacks, both ranged and melee are easier to dodge than others and it doesn't necessarily depend on damage dealt by them. Dodging multiple attacks will also be harder than dodging the same amount of identical attacks spread over time, while armor doesn't make such distinction.
Armor also keeps protecting you if your movement is restricted, although attacks that can bypass it will have greater chance of doing so.

Dodging, armor, blocking and parrying are each their own thing working in different ways and with varying effectiveness against different threats - they should not be conflated.

I like this but this is a fantasy game afterall, what if you're facing a dragon who has nigh unpenetrable hide, shouldn't extra STR benefit you then?

At most it should give you penetration bonus, but it too should cap depending on weapon.
After you max out the penetration you should only get normal damage.

And that's assuming that the penetration bonus will actually be enough to achieve damage.
When used against hard enough stuff with progressively more force some weapons will simply go straight from "no damage" to "weapon broke", skipping damage dealing phase entirely.

SWORDS ARE STRONGER THAN DAGGERS, I AM SO SMART THAT I REALIZE THIS

If you want to balance daggers, you either include a lot of situations where they are the only available or practical weapons (for example you had to leave your main armament outside or are fighting underwater, or are pushed into a knife fight in a phone booth kind of scenario) that can be avoided at some cost, or make daggers and other "shit tier" weapons generic weapons using no particular weapon skill to make them viable to both non-combat classes and as emergency weapons or merge them into, for example stealth, skill.

 

[Roguey]

I have had the pleasure to work on a project where I just got to do whatever I wanted and that was pretty cool.

What is that?

North Carolina probably.

Too bad Microsoft didn't care enough about it to fund it to completion.

 

[Rivmusique]

I'd donate quite a sum of money to kickstart Fuck You,: Suck My Dick: Josh Sawyer

 

[Roguey]

Just give up, you were wrong here. The man prefers classless. Sure, he thinks it's harder to balance, but he's not the type to back away from a challenge.

We're getting into platonic forms here. When it comes to video games that already exist, classless isn't all that great. JA2 has all right content but its system is a bore. And the current failures of Wasteland 2 and Divinity: Original Sin are available for all to see, though I'm sure the developers would fail just as equally with class-based systems.

 

[felipepepe]

Still unsurpassed.

 

[sea]

But that's the problem, Josh doesn't want you to feel gimped (whether because it's more boring, significantly harder, feels stupid etc. ) regardless of the party composition you choose, so if I create a party consisting solely of dagger wielding fighters I shouldn't have a significantly harder time than a party of two handed sword wielding warriors or a traditional RPG party (say warrior, mage, thief and priest) or any other wacky party/weapon composition you come up with, same goes for stats allocation (while there are still more effective combination for a specific class there are supposedly no "bad" characters).

Maybe that's the goal. But I think it's a dumb goal that is solely academic and really does not help the gameplay at all. In what universe does anyone really want or care for a game where they can have 6 dagger-wielding fighters be equally effective as a balanced and well-composed party? Part of what makes party-based RPGs great is freedom to create diverse characters with distinct strengths and weaknesses, and I think Sawyer's goal takes away from that by ensuring everything is perfectly balanced no matter how nonsensical your character-building choices might be.

Like I said, this is a solution to a "problem" that only really exists in his head.

Sure you'll be punished. If you use a weapon that isn't strong against a certain kind of enemy, you'll do worse in combat and might die.

It's a different challenge factor. The challenge isn't "build the right character and breeze through combat, otherwise suffer" ala Fallout. The challenge is "make the right choices in combat, otherwise suffer".

Seriously, what's so hardcore about locking you to a certain kind of weapon? SWORDS ARE STRONGER THAN DAGGERS, I AM SO SMART THAT I REALIZE THIS

No, that is not the design goal in Pillars of Eternity. How many times do we have to go over this?

The game encourages switching weapons in and out. If you don't do that, you'll fail at playing the game and do worse in combat.

You don't need to remove STR requirements on weapons to accomplish that. What, if I come across a bunch of iron golems, does that mean everyone in my party needs to equip great warhammers, even the piddly mage, thief and archer? That's why damage types accomplish the exact same task - and were actually made extensive use of in various Infinity Engine games - and do it in a way that isn't derp as fuck.

 

[Infinitron]

You don't need to remove STR requirements on weapons to accomplish that.

Who said you do?

Read the rest of the thread.

 

[FeelTheRads]

That's why damage types accomplish the exact same task - and were actually made extensive use of in various Infinity Engine games - and do it in a way that isn't derp as fuck.

Speaking of which, didn't he also remove immunities so he doesn't punish players and doesn't want the players to keep switching between different weapons because it's mundane or degenerate or whatever else?

 

[Monad]

Still unsurpassed.

The job system is amazing but the game still has some very poorly designed encounters.

 

[Infinitron]

Speaking of which, didn't he also remove immunities so he doesn't punish players and doesn't want the players to keep switching between different weapons because it's mundane or degenerate or whatever else?

No, that's not why he "removed" (removed from where?) immunities. He's simply not in favor of anything that can make you 100% invulnerable to something.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Even Dragon Age 2 has immunities and different damage types.

 

[FeelTheRads]

"Didn't include." Jeez, any other issues?

Why didn't he include them then? That's what I remember to be the motivation.

 

[Infinitron]

Why didn't he include them then? That's what I remember to be motivation.

As I said, it's because, as a rule, he's not in favor of anything that can make you 100% invulnerable to something. That goes from everything from resistances to damage types to Damage Threshold mechanics to Missing and Hitting.

Sawyer is strongly IN FAVOR of switching weapons and tactics during combat. It sounds like it will be much more common than it was in the IE games.

There have actually been retards on the Obsidian forums who were concerned about this because "it's too much micromanagement".

 

[DraQ]

We're getting into platonic forms here. When it comes to video games that already exist, cRPGs aren't all that great.

Fix'd.

 

[sea]

Who said you do?

Read the rest of the thread.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...-eternity-thread.75947/page-1022#post-3015969

 

[Infinitron]

Who said you do?

Read the rest of the thread.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...-eternity-thread.75947/page-1022#post-3015969

There's no direct connection between what I said in the post you replied to and Sawyer's justification for his dislike of STR requirements for weapons.

I don't really care much about that entire line of argument. This isn't D&D, wizards can and do use swords --> move on.

 

[FeelTheRads]

As I said, it's because, as a rule, he's not in favor of anything that can make you 100% invulnerable to something.

OK, so it's down to whatever he favors is best for all RPGs ever.

Sawyer is strongly IN FAVOR of switching weapons and tactics during combat. It sounds like it will be much more common than it was in the IE games.

If you say so. You've certainly read more about it than me. Unless you just take Sawyer's word for it. Because to me it sounds exactly the opposite.
And no, I won't consider "failing" that I do a couple of points of damage less with a weapon than with another. Not enough to consider switching.

 

[sea]

There's no direct connection between what I said in the post you replied to and Sawyer's justification for his dislike of STR requirements for weapons.

Meh, fair enough, I was still mostly replying to Sawyer's point and assumed you were in favor of his argument.

I think it's fine for wizards to use big swords, if there are skills governing it that say "well you also basically suck at using swords, suck at using magic, etc." depending on your build. But then it becomes a question of, why would you even have classes if you can make a mage that sucks at spellcasting but is great with swords?

That's why D&D's way of doing things is actually pretty logical - no it's not really "realistic" that you can't use a certain type of item, but I think it's also believable that a person of a given class wouldn't or couldn't physically. You could do stuff like "mage penalty for using swords -90%" but that seems pointlessly complicated and nobody's going to use a weapon that has that kind of penalty on it.