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

[Infinitron]

Holy crap at the Biodrone brown-nosing in that topic. "STICK TO YOUR GUNS, JOSH! BRAVO, SIR, BRAVO!"

 

[Scruffy]

I’m ok with scaling up as long as there’s no scaling down.

 

[Infinitron]

What does this teach us? Feargus on the Kickstarter comments may have no idea what he's talking about.

 

[Jaesun]

What's the problem? He merely clarified that is it NOT retarded WOW/DA magic spamming. The " still have to make choices about what spells you have available to cast" I can live with. I'd certainly like more details.

 

[Infinitron]

I'd certainly like more details.

Exactly, and there's no reason to fellate a man whose salary I'm helping to pay until he provides them.

 

[Scruffy]

Fun facts :

- some tactical RPGs have level scaling, like FF tactic ;
- cooldowns are a good way to implement something that turnbased games rarely do : tiredness and exhaustion.

Those two things depend entirely on the way they're implemented. Raging over buzzwords is as stupid as masturbating over them.

I’ll copy here what I wrote on their forum, because I feel weird and naked posting somewhere else than the codex:


Rather than cooldowns, spellcasters could have a sort of “mana bar” (stay with me there for a minute) based on intelligence/wisdom and partly constitution and which becomes “longer” with leveling up. Higher level spells would have a “mana” cost too high for low level casters, maintaining balance. It’s a sort of “fatigue”, the caster can choose to cast low level spells and be able to cast many of them, or higher level spells which wear him out more quickly. Obviously this bar doesn’t regenerate (like in Arcanum, as someone suggested) and potions to regenerate it exist but are waaaaaaaaaaay too rare to be used normally, and should only be employed for important encounters. I’m talking 4/5 potions in the whole explorable world.


Specialist casters could choose options that lower the cost of spells in a specific casting school, but make it higher in the “opposite” school (or not). Cantrips don’t fatigue the caster, and very high level casters can choose a skill that makes 1st level spells be casted as cantrips and so on. When the caster rests, the fatigue regenerates. It regenerates completely only in taverns and similar, and in the wild it only regenerates partially. Of course resting should only be possible at minimum intervals.


This makes casting a much more tactical matter and prevents casters from becoming too powerful too early (baldur’s gate fireball?), allows you to choose among any spell you can cast instead of only the memorized ones and can have interesting/fun moments where a rested mage saves the day by casting a powerful spell but then is too tired to cast anything but cantrips, so now it’s the rest of the team’s responsibility to protect him and so on.
As a practical example, a level 1 mage has 10 “mana” or “fatigue” or whatever. A level 1 spell costs 4 mana, so he can cast 2. A mage with a higher intelligence has 12 mana, so he can cast 3. A level 2 spell costs 8 mana, so he CAN cast something a bit higher than he’s supposed to, but then he’d be too tired to do anything else. At level 3 the mage has 28 mana, so he can either cast 2 lvl 2 spells or a lvl 2 spells and 5 lvl 1 spells (I’m just making stuff up, don’t take these numbers as actual proposals for a scaling system). Gear that affects your intelligence or your “mana” makes you capable of casting more stuff obviously. Special gear has a “mana bar” of its own which can only be used with a certain level of spells and it regenerates slowly, so a ring that gives you 4 mana to cast lvl 1 spells will allow you to cast a lvl 1 spell and then it will (slowly) start to regenerate, and later on during the “day” you’ll be able to use it again. Etc.


This would allow for a sort of spell “customization” too, a sort of metamagic. Do you want your acid arrow to do more damage? It will still be a second level spell, but will cost some more. Do you want to target multiple targets? Some perk or skill will allow you to do that, but it’ll cost you more energy to do so.


Also rather than finding scrolls and memorizing them, you could learn how to use a “basic” magic ability and then be able to modify it according to needs. Let’s say that you learn to cast an “arrow” of raw magical energy. With some extra training and energy, you can make this “arrow” into acid, or fire (let’s say you find a troll) or ice if you find some fire elemental, and so on, to retake a different thread about customization of spells. Why should I throw a fireball, if a similar spell but with acid will serve me better?


This could also get some sort of connection with the whole “souls” things, which, from what little I have gathered, play a role when it comes to spellcasting. Let’s say that at character creation you can choose some sort of “soul” affinity with fire. You’ll be more resistant to it, and casting fire-based stuff will be easier to you, but water/ice casting stuff will be very difficult and wear you out quickly.



Well that’s it, those were my two cents, it’s just that I prefer literally anything to cooldowns. Cheers.

 

[Oesophagus]

Somehow, I'm not really bothered about PE. The W2 kickstarter got me excited because it was the result of a good idea. As in Fargo had a game he wanted to make, and the kickstarter thing came much later. But here it just seems that Obsidian threw itself on the fact that there's a niche willing to give them money for anything that's oldschool. At least that's what it looks like, the general idea of what the game is supposed to be is "oldschool an Baldur's Gatey". Which just sounds completely generic.
Of course it might turn out that W2 is shit and PE is GOTYOMGITZHEVAN. Or not. I don't know. Fuck you

 

[Infinitron]

Consoletard bashing thread http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60897-project-eternity-on-consoles/

 

[Alex]

Scaled encounters doesn't make the level up system pointless. If anything it highlights the fact that you have become more powerful, and must face more powerful enemies to retain a challenge.

I don't think having an upper limit on level scaling is something anyone here disagreed on, so this still lets you steamroll some places, like coming back later when you're higher level.

Having some amount of scaling prevents you from accidentally out leveling an area you wanted to be a challenge, and having to meta-game your exploration so you don't accidentally trivialise the game encounters.

Maybe it doesn't make leveling pointless, but it makes exploration a lot wackier. It is kind of stupid a lich would spawn in a random spot of the dungeon for no reason. In a good D&D game, a freaking lich should be more than just a random encounter. It reminds me about a joke I heard about the epic level book for 3E, where the parties find, while camping, a random group of 4 gods of death.

I really think the best way to make battles challenging is to throw curveballs. Like, if you are a 13 level fighter in AD&D,you still are afraid do a lot of monsters. A large group of goblins might set up traps, use siege weapons and squad tactics to beat your sorry ass. A rust monster could still spoil your treasured +5 sword, +6 against giants, +7 against fire giants, +8 against fire giants on tuesdays. A tarantella may still make you lose face in front of your henchman with its poison. A doppelganger, can split the party, greatly reducing your abilities. One of the reasons I hate the term DPS, is because people start thinking about everything in terms of HP. D&D has always used the HP concept, but it has also always had things that go around the system. The whole idea was that it was the curveballs you should be watching for.

Other than that, you can always make the game work by having in game reasons for there being more enemies now. Maybe there is a lich near those gloves for a good reason. Maybe he showed up after the heroes broke his crypt in a previous excursion. But this means that the scaling isn't really tied with levels, but the game world. It is a lot more work, but on the upside, it makes the world a lot more fun to explore.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

there's no reason to fellate a man

Jaesun could give you a few, amirite or amirite?

 

[Jaesun]

I'd certainly like more details.

Exactly, and there's no reason to fellate a man whose salary I'm helping to pay until he provides them.

Just like all the specifics about Wasteland 2 that we have been told?

 

[Semper]

Reading all of the quotes on the front page, it really sounds like the cooldowns are more likely replacing the rest system while you will still have to make choices about what spells you have available to cast.

Thank you for reading what I wrote.

so it's basically vancian with automatic resting, instead of restricted. why do they change it then?

 

[Infinitron]

I'd certainly like more details.

Exactly, and there's no reason to fellate a man whose salary I'm helping to pay until he provides them.

Just like all the specifics about Wasteland 2 that we have been told?

It's one thing to call somebody a "BRO" semi-ironically here on the Codex, but when a dude is posting in the same thread as you on a forum, sucking up to him is just pathetic IMO.

 

[Black]

In a good D&D game

He's talking about BG2.

 

[CoolioMaximus]

So PE is basically going to be 4e D&D: The cRPG?

 

[Infinitron]

http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/377480249010585532

​

21Spires
Would you be able to offer any clarification on the type of monster level scaling planned for PE? I read Feargus Urquhart’s recent comments and was very disappointed that it may be included at all. Otherwise, looking forward to PE! Thanks so much.

JESawyer
I wasn't planning on using level scaling much, if at all.

 

[jewboy]

Without any level or encounter scaling, and assuming some sort of level or skill progression for the pc, there is more or less only 1 fixed path that will result in optimum combat enjoyment. On a first playthrough this is not much of a drawback. For replay value it becomes more and more of a drawback however. I also greatly enjoy going to difficult areas before I am at a high enough level and getting my ass handed to me. And the feel of authenticity this gives each encounter is difficult to replicate in other ways. When Firkraag's power is fixed no matter what your level you realize what an achievement it is to defeat him right after Chateau Irenicus, something I've tried to do many times. I believe Firkraag was scaled (unfortunately) but not so much that I ever succeeded at beating him at level 9-11 (without cheese/exploits). But I would have preferred if he hadn't been scaled at all. It is awe inspiring to face such a powerful foe. One that can defeat even a level 30 party when you are only at level 9.

Encounter scaling and perhaps very minor level scaling can result in better replay value, but only at the expense of diluting the enjoyment of many of the most enjoyable encounters, although in games with subtle scaling like BG2 this is difficult to notice and BG2's replay value is one of its greatest features. When I get bored of a playthrough that starts at one point from Chateau Irenicus I can go to something completely diffferent and still have challenging combat. For a large game like BG2+ToB the value of this sort of encounter shuffling is difficult to overestimate, but it is not without a price. Most things have a price and encounter scaling is no exception. One area where it always bothers me is in Watchers Keep. It doesn't work as smoothly there as in other areas. The difference between hitting it fresh from The Chateau and after the Underdark is very great indeed. Much too great and that illustrates how encounter scaling (boring monsters -> fun monsters in this case) can be done poorly even in games famous for doing it well. Sometimes you really want a large challenge by going to an encounter earlier than may be wise. You don't always want the game to adapt to your lower level.

And this brings me to a further point: Level scaling is less valuable when it reduces the difficulty of enemies. It could be argued that it should only make too easy enemies more difficult and not the other way around. Easy encounters get boring very quickly. It's good for a novelty battle once in a while at least with RtwP games, but it's not the sort of battle you want very often. In turn based combat I'd argue that you never want it. So if you know you might be facing a bunch of easy encounters you are probably going to either want to skip them or scale them. Scaling seems like a better option in that case. OTOH, for replay value it is sometimes nice to be able to attack different areas first. In those cases it may be necessary to scale down the encounters in the first areas and scale up the encounters in the last areas if you want to do a serious playthrough in a different way. Sure you can go to the more difficult areas first, but you will probably just get killed over and over again. Which loses it's charm after a while. And even if you do succeed once in a while the later areas will then be too easy with out scaling up those encounters.

For me the best system is probably a 95% encounter scaling, 5% level scaling system that can be turned on or off or reset for an entire map at will. Sometimes I want encounter scaling and sometimes I don't. For small games like ToEE it may not be necessary because it is too small to have much replay value. For me that's actually its greatest flaw. I so wish that Troika had had at least a little bit more development time on that project.

 

[IronicNeurotic]

FUCKING CALLED IT.



First rule of dealing with Obsidian. Don't take anything Feargus says about design as a fact. He's the CEO and anything he says may be with the best intentions. But not the truth.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Obsidian excels at 3 things (when the leash isn't too tight): interesting worlds with some depth, great dialogues, great role-playing.

And you base this on what? MotB only? Because I can't figure out what other game of theirs fits this.

KOTOR 2 was pretty good in that area. I didn't like combat, but the atmosphere (a more mature take on the SW universe), dialogues, and role-playing were pretty good. Combat was the weak point, crafting and stances were useless because the game was too easy as it is.

NWN2 - bad combat, too much dumb action quests and filler, but the rest was decent or better. At very least, the dialogues were the best part of the game.

MotB - Codex classic

SoZ - an interesting experiment, the trading angle, low key story, and low-level combat were pretty good, but overall the game lacked something to make it really good.

New Vegas - pretty damn good overall (combat still sucks), good dialogues, superb role-playing (choices, quests design, and such). The world was fairly unique too and was done better than in Fallout 2 or Fallout 3.

Dead Money - great atmosphere, great dialogues, good role-playing.

Old World's Blues - good atmosphere, great dialogues, good role-playing, really awful combat if you're a high level character

The Lone Road - didn't play

Alpha Protocol - pros: good C&C engine, cons: the C&C engine was disconnected from the action game and existed somewhere between the missions.

DS3 - didn't play, but apparently the atmosphere and writing were good.

 

[Grunker]

Wow, from the time it took me to motorcycle from University to my apartment, shit happened in this thread. Grand.

Good shouting-match, thanks to all who yelled. Unless I'm missing something I haven't replied to (do kick me if that's the case), I'm going to hope Sawyer's response is genuine. Now, about those cooldowns...

 

[Jaesun]

Now, about those cooldowns...

They will not be the fucking retarded WOW/DA kind, and replaces resting. So we still have the tactical choice of do I use my 1 remaining fireball spell in this battle?

I can live with that. I will however be curious HOW they implement this. I think Josh and Tim can come to a good conclusion.

 

[Grunker]

Now, about those cooldowns...

They will not be the fucking retarded WOW/DA kind

Sauce?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Reading all of the quotes on the front page, it really sounds like the cooldowns are more likely replacing the rest system while you will still have to make choices about what spells you have available to cast.

Thank you for reading what I wrote.

I don't know where this topic came from, but I don't expect to use level scaling much, if at all, in PE.

Sub guise.

Yesterday:

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60...stem-and-cooldowns/page__st__360#entry1217514

"I'm not going to rule out cooldowns and I'm not going to design the entire magic system on the fly over the course of three weeks. Both Tim and I want the magic system to feel expansive, powerful, and flexible. We want the player to have to make prep choices when selecting spells for active use. These things do not require a Vancian system, nor do they require the absence of cooldowns as a mechanic. As I wrote in one of the class threads, our goal with class design is not to limit the role of classes but to ensure that every class does have at least one combat role they can clearly excel in. This does not mean that wizards won't be able to cast protective spells, transformative spells, etc. It is likely that they will not be able to select from all of those things in the moment but unlikely that we will require the player to rest to change what he or she has access to."

2 days ago:

"I think it's possible to still make prep meaningful by allowing the player to switch between pre-built (by the player) suites of spells at a frequency that is less than "per rest". I.e. if the player can only use a subset of spells at any given time, but can switch between those subsets with a time penalty (or only outside of combat), that still makes the choices important without the system strictly being Vancian."

On the Vancian system:

"In tabletop games, the "Vancian" systems do make strategic gameplay more important, but a lot of that is lost in a game with reloading. Especially if the choice of spells has a dramatic effect on efficacy (e.g. did you memorize dimensional anchor before fighting creatures that are constantly teleporting all over the battlefield), failure to select the "right" ones can result in catastrophic failure. In the absence of information required to make informed decisions, those choices aren't strategic; they're just guesses. After a reload, they're meta-strategic, but I doubt most players feel clever for making a retrospectively obvious choice."

Makes sense, no?

 

[Infinitron]

Grunker
In short: Josh has dropped hints in the past hour or so that the cooldowns are going to be strictly "a replacement for resting". What that means is anybody's guess.

I wouldn't let them off the hook just yet, Jaesun.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Obsidian excels at 3 things (when the leash isn't too tight): interesting worlds with some depth, great dialogues, great role-playing.

And you base this on what? MotB only? Because I can't figure out what other game of theirs fits this.

KOTOR 2 was pretty good in that area. I didn't like combat, but the atmosphere (a more mature take on the SW universe), dialogues, and role-playing were pretty good. Combat was the weak point, crafting and stances were useless because the game was too easy as it is.

NWN2 - bad combat, too much dumb action quests and filler, but the rest was decent or better. At very least, the dialogues were the best part of the game.

MotB - Codex classic

SoZ - an interesting experiment, the trading angle, low key story, and low-level combat were pretty good, but overall the game lacked something to make it really good.

New Vegas - pretty damn good overall (combat still sucks), good dialogues, superb role-playing (choices, quests design, and such). The world was fairly unique too and was done better than in Fallout 2 or Fallout 3.

Dead Money - great atmosphere, great dialogues, good role-playing.

Old World's Blues - good atmosphere, great dialogues, good role-playing, really awful combat if you're a high level character

The Lone Road - didn't play

Alpha Protocol - pros: good C&C engine, cons: the C&C engine was disconnected from the action game and existed somewhere between the missions.

DS3 - didn't play, but apparently the atmosphere and writing were good.

Myeah, leaving aside the disagreements I have with your assessments, I thought it was about what they can do when "the leash isn't too tight" and now you're listing me everything they released? So when was the leash tight then? And when not? If they can do all these "great things" with a leash, why do they need Kickstarter? If they can't do better, I see no reason to help them. I'm supposed to give them money to do what they already do?