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

[ZagorTeNej]

Level scaling

Sawyer is against it, he said there will be little to no level scaling in PoE IIRC.

I dislike level scaling with passion so I'd take a more linear design if that's the alternative. That said, encounter scaling (something that BG2 had) is very different to level scaling in my mind and is something I'm not that much against.

 

[Grunker]

How was BG2 restrictive?

Relative to the discussion, Tigranes. BG2 is restrictive and story-funneled compared to BG1. If we get more restrictive than BG2, something like PS:T is what we end up with. That's pretty restrictivie compared to my expectations.

Level scaling

Sawyer is against it, he said there will be little to no level scaling in PoE IIRC.

I dislike level scaling with passion so I'd take a more linear design if that's the alternative. That said, encounter scaling (something that BG2 had) is very different to level scaling in my mind and is something I'm not that much against.

There is no practical difference between level scaling in a sandbox and no level scaling in a linear game. Where monsters scale to your level in a sandbox, in a linear game the developers can pinpoint your exact level at any given time and create challenges to meet that level.

Hmmm, I don't think Josh's opposition to BG2's structure is due concerns about "overlevelling" or some other game-mechanic related concern. My impression is that he considers it bad in terms of narrative and pacing.

Isn't most of the point about non-linearity to allow the player to shape his own experience and create his own pacing?

 

[ZagorTeNej]

There is no practical difference between level scaling in a sandbox and no level scaling in a linear game. Where monsters scale to your level in a sandbox, in a linear game the developers can pinpoint your exact level at any given time and create challenges to meet that level.

That to me is akin to saying there would be no practical difference between facing a Firkraag in BG2's dungeon and a lvl 40 house cat that has the same stats and abilities as him (afterall the challenge level would be the same) in his stead. Level scaling is a horrible mechanic that is usually employed in such a way that it utterly destroys any game's setting coherence/internal consistency it posseses.

Furthemore, hand crafted encounters based on the general idea of party's level are usually more entertaining and challenging instead of giving the same mooks much better equipment and bloating their stats (HP, attack, damage etc.).

Also, if you don't think this:

...the developers can pinpoint your exact level at any given time and create challenges to meet that level.

Will be one of Josh's design goals and one of the main reasons they decided against giving XP for kills then I guess you have a different opinion on the man that I do.

 

[Roguey]

Looks like I'm going to have to quote what Josh actually said.

Do creatures scale to your level in this game or is it set from the beginning?

JS: It’s all pretty much set from the beginning. We may—we haven’t really looked into it a lot but we might do specific encounter scaling on crit-path stuff, but we haven’t so far done anything like that.

So there’s an optimal path—like Fallout: New Vegas, don’t head North right away.

JS: Yeah, to make things clear we are going to have stuff, like, “Hey, this looks like a really horrible cave.” Maybe you don’t go in there, or you’re super cool, you’re a really cool dude, and you go in there and you win and you get a special prize. We’re not going to scale that stuff, and we’re specifically going to put stuff near the crit-path that is potentially enticing and really dangerous with some warning so that you as a player will poke your head in and go, “Maaaaaybe.” We want people to see that stuff and be tempted by it and play the risk-reward game and feel proud if they make their way through it.

Or feel wise for waiting.

Do the rewards for those areas scale to level?

JS: No.

How much stuff is in the wild, and how much is in town doing quests?

JS: It’s hard to say right now because we’re still developing our wilderness stuff. There’s a lot of stuff in the cities. They’re big and, more than being big, they’re very dense. There’s a lot of quests in the cities. A lot of stuff to do. We are making wilderness areas right now. We want those to feel like they’re fun to explore and have good density.

Like BG1, pretty low on density. BG2, very very high. In this case the answer is actually in the middle. A little more density in the wildernesses but still making them feel like open like you’re exploring and finding things rather than just constantly tripping over encounters and stuff like that.

Is the whole map unlocked from the beginning? Is there a path directing you through?

JS: It’s a branching path, and you can kind of branch off and veer around. Again, that’ll likely depend ultimately on the total number of wilderness areas we have because those wilderness areas can be used as routes between and through stuff. But yeah, it expands and branches out and allows you to go in different ways, but it’s not Skyrim.

AB: It’s not completely open-ended. We do have some content that’s locked off. You can’t go to the end-game immediately.

Wilderness areas as content gates and an endgame you can't access until the plot says you can (just like a bunch of other RPGs) seems fine to me.

 

[Grunker]

There is no practical difference between level scaling in a sandbox and no level scaling in a linear game. Where monsters scale to your level in a sandbox, in a linear game the developers can pinpoint your exact level at any given time and create challenges to meet that level.

That to me is akin to saying there would be no practical difference between facing a Firkraag in BG2's dungeon and a lvl 40 house cat that has the same stats and abilities as him

Level scaling doesn't suck because it ruins the aesthaetics (dragon vs cat), that's just a side effect. It sucks because it ruins sense of progression and player agency. In that, there is no difference between scaling and linearity.

Wilderness areas as content gates and an endgame you can't access until the plot says you can (just like a bunch of other RPGs) seems fine to me.

Like I said, if it's like BG2 where you basically have the whole game open minus end-game content, then cool. So it all depends how those content-gates are set up. If they're too restrictive so you basically gain access to pre-defined chunks of linear, designed gameplay, then "buh!"

 

[Sensuki]

The game will be content gated up to the end of chapter 1 as well. I know what Josh said Roguey, but I am taking an educated guess that the content gating will be a little bit more strict than that.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

Level scaling doesn't suck because it ruins the aesthaetics (dragon vs cat), that's just a side effect. It sucks because it ruins sense of progression and player agency. In that, there is no difference between scaling and linearity.

That only boils down to just aesthetics if you don't put enough value into encounters being supported by game's narrative, setting and internal logic, level scaling ruins player's experience in that regard.

Also disagree about there being no difference between level scaling and linearity in regard to ruining player's sense of progression, in a relatively linear game with no level scaling goblins will remain goblins, it's just that instead of facing just groups of them early in the game later on when you face them they'll just be canon fodder a powerful mage sends at you to buy him time to cast a nasty spell against you, you'll have a sense of progression (early on a group of goblins was dangerous but at this stage of the game they're no real threat to you on their own because you've grown more powerful) while still being challenged. In a game with level scaling on the other hand, you'll face those same poor and stupid goblins later on but they'll be decked in full plates, wield vorpal swords and having bloated HP, see the difference?

Regardless, this is all beside point, based on my understanding (which may be completely wrong, I'm not claiming I can read his mind or something) of Sawyer's approach to game design I think you'll be end up being disappointed if you expect the game to be as non-linear as BG2 (to have access to so much of game's content so early) for the reasons I already mentioned in the thread.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

Looks like I'm going to have to quote what Josh actually said.

Do creatures scale to your level in this game or is it set from the beginning?

JS: It’s all pretty much set from the beginning. We may—we haven’t really looked into it a lot but we might do specific encounter scaling on crit-path stuff, but we haven’t so far done anything like that.

So there’s an optimal path—like Fallout: New Vegas, don’t head North right away.

JS: Yeah, to make things clear we are going to have stuff, like, “Hey, this looks like a really horrible cave.” Maybe you don’t go in there, or you’re super cool, you’re a really cool dude, and you go in there and you win and you get a special prize. We’re not going to scale that stuff, and we’re specifically going to put stuff near the crit-path that is potentially enticing and really dangerous with some warning so that you as a player will poke your head in and go, “Maaaaaybe.” We want people to see that stuff and be tempted by it and play the risk-reward game and feel proud if they make their way through it.

Or feel wise for waiting.

Do the rewards for those areas scale to level?

JS: No.

How much stuff is in the wild, and how much is in town doing quests?

JS: It’s hard to say right now because we’re still developing our wilderness stuff. There’s a lot of stuff in the cities. They’re big and, more than being big, they’re very dense. There’s a lot of quests in the cities. A lot of stuff to do. We are making wilderness areas right now. We want those to feel like they’re fun to explore and have good density.

Like BG1, pretty low on density. BG2, very very high. In this case the answer is actually in the middle. A little more density in the wildernesses but still making them feel like open like you’re exploring and finding things rather than just constantly tripping over encounters and stuff like that.

Is the whole map unlocked from the beginning? Is there a path directing you through?

JS: It’s a branching path, and you can kind of branch off and veer around. Again, that’ll likely depend ultimately on the total number of wilderness areas we have because those wilderness areas can be used as routes between and through stuff. But yeah, it expands and branches out and allows you to go in different ways, but it’s not Skyrim.

AB: It’s not completely open-ended. We do have some content that’s locked off. You can’t go to the end-game immediately.

Wilderness areas as content gates and an endgame you can't access until the plot says you can (just like a bunch of other RPGs) seems fine to me.

One should have no illusions about how most designers actually design the game vs how they say will/want to design them.

Just joking Roguey, I hope you turn out to be right and the game ends up somewhere between BG1 and BG2 in terms of non-linearity (which is another thing I remember Josh said somewhere) with the main quest path encounters still being challenging.

It's also encouraging he says encounter scaling (a far better option compared to level scaling IMO).

 

[Grunker]

it's just that instead of facing just groups of them early in the game later on when you face them they'll just be canon fodder a powerful mage sends at you

Planned cannonfodder. Hand-placed by devs who knew exactly what level you would be by the time you faced them.

 

[skyst]

Also disagree about there being no difference between level scaling and linearity in regard to ruining player's sense of progression, in a relatively linear game with no level scaling goblins will remain goblins, it's just that instead of facing just groups of them early in the game later on when you face them they'll just be canon fodder a powerful mage sends at you to buy him time to cast a nasty spell against you, you'll have a sense of progression (early on a group of goblins was dangerous but at this stage of the game they're no real threat to you on their own because you've grown more powerful) while still being challenged. In a game with level scaling on the other hand, you'll face those same poor and stupid goblins later on but they'll be decked in full plates, wield vorpal swords and having bloated HP, see the difference?

There's a fine line to walk between your two examples that seems effective, taking a bit from both theories. It is important to keep some standard enemies recurring in a setting, both to add consistency and also as a form of gauging progression for the player. Difficulty can be added by increasing enemy numbers or putting the PCs at a disadvantage from the start, like the shitty goblins spring an ambush or something. Monsters (animals, beasts, etc) remaining consistent is pretty important, a wolf shouldn't mysteriously be more powerful as the player improves. However intelligent or henchman type enemies can often be improved without breaking the setting; if the PCs have attained a degree of power it is completely appropriate that the assassins sent to stop them would be a challenge to them at any level.

I DM two home brew P&P campaigns, one weekly, one less frequently and have learned the hard way about power scaling and how to make it work without taking a dump on your setting. A week earlier, one group fairly easily handled a sea serpent attack on their boat. The next week, I had a chase sequence planned out against a swarm of badass city guards that were roughly equivalent in power each to a PC, to which my players, riding high on the sea serpent victory, called out in confusion, "Who the fuck are these guys?" Everyone still had fun, but clearly none of my elite serpent slayers liked being challenged by mere guards.

I now prefer Zagor's suggestion of having similarly powered trash enemies backed up by more powerful spell casters or leaders to add challenge. My scenario above probably would have been more enjoyable had the guards been weaker but supported by a few higher ranking soldiers or more skilled bounty hunters, etc.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

There won't be xp for kills. Why suffer through trash mobs in Sawyers balance fetish in RTwP?

 

[Jedi Exile]

There won't be xp for kills

Was it actually confirmed?

 

[Sensuki]

Yep. Over a year ago.

 

[Grunker]

Fortunately. One of the - in isolation - most obvious decisions that all RPGs should make.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

Fortunately. One of the - in isolation - most obvious decisions that all RPGs should make.

I wonder how wizardry wizardry 8 would play with no kill exp.

 

[Roguey]

Wizardry 1: You gain a level after reaching the exit of each level
Wizardry 8: Completing objectives.

That wasn't so difficult.

If Sir-Tech were competent of course there'd be less grind. Content that exists solely for grinding is bad. Back when "wrpg vs jrpg" threads existed on the internet "no(t as much) grinding" was one of the arguments in favor or wrpgs.

 

[Hormalakh]

For every bad decision sawyer makes, there's at least two good ones. No kill xp is one of the good ones.

As for the question of trash mobs vs xp, therein lies the strategy or decision that one has to make. The challenge of trash mobs being low and the reward being more or less equal makes fighting such mobs a worthy dilemma. Either you can fight them or go around them. Of course, if you fight them you might get enough gold from their stash to make it worthwhile, but then you have to expend renewable or non renewable resources, and time, to do so. The lack of xp, being one of the most valuable resources in most games, not being given makes this decision less obvious.

There are of course, other reasons why no kill xp is a good idea.

 

[cherry blossom]

Noticed the title update, good luck with that when Obsidian is going to be closed for the rest of this week (well technically they're back for the last two days).

New stretch goals are pretty much a lock. I hope they do get additional funds to buy more wilderness areas, cause Josh said at the moment they have a little less than what BG2 had, which was seven. That's not going to live up to ~player expectations~.

I can take or leave additional companions.

SEVEN? Most certainly doesn't live up to my expectations.

 

[imweasel]

Was it actually confirmed?

I believe they said that it might be changed, but as it stands at the moment xp will not be rewarded for combat.

IMO it would be better to just remove (most or almost all of) the trash mobs if you aren't going to reward xp for killing them. No need to put effort into creating something that nobody will bother killing under most circumstances if it isn't blocking their path anyway.

 

[Duraframe300]

Is there an update next week?

 

[Roguey]

For every bad decision sawyer makes, there's at least two good ones.

That's not right, he hasn't made any bad decisions.

SEVEN? Most certainly doesn't live up to my expectations.

Little less than, so more like five or six.

 

[Zed]

For every bad decision sawyer makes, there's at least two good ones.

That's not right, he hasn't made any bad decisions.

a game is a sum of its parts and sawyer is not responsible for all parts. also, some decisions he makes now may look bad in hindsight. not everything has been revealed to us. he may, for instance, have put a super bad area into the game, or done something else that will only be revealed to us once the game is out.

as for "no exp for kills", I'm expecting most quest objectives involving killing to be giving exp anyway, effectively granting exp for kills or defeating encounters anyway. it's just that you won't be able to grind forest wolves to max level and then stroll through content like in Baldur's Gate.

 

[Ninjerk]

For every bad decision sawyer makes, there's at least two good ones.

That's not right, he hasn't made any bad decisions.

Little less than, so more like five or six.

Ergo he hasn't made any good decisions.

 

[Roguey]

a game is a sum of its parts and sawyer is not responsible for all parts. also, some decisions he makes now may look bad in hindsight. not everything has been revealed to us. he may, for instance, have put a super bad area into the game, or done something else that will only be revealed to us once the game is out.

There's no proof he's ever made a bad decision, so I'll choose to believe he's never made one. He makes the best decisions given the circumstances and constraints with which he has to deal.

 

[Rake]

For every bad decision sawyer makes, there's at least two good ones.

That's not right, he hasn't made any bad decisions.

Little less than, so more like five or six.

Ergo he hasn't made any good decisions.

They promished 2 Athkatla sized cities, and a 15 level mega dungeon. That alone would have made the game 2 times as big as BG2 if they combined it with many wilderness areas.
As far as i'm concerned, he made thr right decision cutting filler widerness areas (the worst part of BG1) to have more content in cities and cool dungeons.
You want to go hiking explorefags? You better pay more jewgold for the new strechgoals.