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

[PlanHex]

MCA just namedropped Age of Decadence during the break from D&D.


YES I'M STILL WATCHING IT'S 5:30 I HAVE NO LIFE

 

[Arkadin]

Wasn't MCA discussing the skill checks in AoD's dialogues, hinting that they'd do something similar in Project Eternity? I was cooking apple sauce and not paying full attention.

 

[Volourn]

"No, he's not. Don't even continue this because everyone involved is completely wron"

I am completely right like always so fuck off.


"It's bad because it's a mechanic that encourages people to play as bloodthirsty psychopaths"

No, it doesn't. In all my years playing pnp, I never ever fukkin' saw this. i never saw the mentality of 'let's complete the quest by talking for xp then kill them for xp bonus too'. It never fukkin' happened. Not ever. Nor did I ever see anyone say lt's go grind RANDOM monsters for cheap xp.

The fact that idiots do that in video games doesn't change there's nothing wrong with giving xp for combat 9and non combat). It'sm asanine and lazy design to think there's anything inherently betetr than the ME2 design. LMFAO

PnP and old skool games (even older kooler skool games) gives you xp for combat. It didn't make them fukkin' worst.

This game has added something to make it like new skool games. That's bad and spits in the face of what PE is supposed to be about. It's weak ass design tod efend such laziness like this.

But, hey, at least it has dwarfs.

 

[jewboy]

No, he's not. Don't even continue this because everyone involved is completely wrong

Citation needed.

Kill-based experience gain isn't any more characteristic of pnp than goal-based experience gain...There's no ABSOLUTE METHOD OF HANDING EXPERIENCE. Different games handle it differently.

Next you people are going to argue over die sizes, holy shit

I was kind of hoping you might have like some specific example. On my side I can cite 2nd Edition D&D. What have you got for an example?

 

[PlanHex]

Wasn't MCA discussing the skill checks in dialogue, hinting that they'd do something similar in Project Eternity? I was cooking apple sauce and not paying full attention.

Something about text descriptions and skill checks in dialogue, yeah.
The whole CYOA thing, kinda like interacting with the zombies in PS:T and tinkering with the mining equipment in AoD, and just generally describing people and things in the dialogue-box before any actual dialogue occurs.
Not sure if he confirmed that it's in, but I think there was something on the subject in the reddit AMA.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

Wtf are you watching, PlanHex? Also, when's the last time you pooped? Maybe you need to poop.

 

[Alex]

SO a system that is more like an actual PnP session is bad, and dumbing down?

Uh? PnP games have rewards for combat.

Here Alex are the actual quotes posted from Sawyer:

Tim and I would rather not give XP for general killin' because it leads to a lot of weird/degenerate scenarios, but I have no problem with having quests oriented specifically around killing and receiving XP for achieving sub-objectives/the main goal.

Gameplay degeneration occurs when a player engages in gameplay not because they enjoy that gameplay but because the game's mechanics put the player at a disadvantage for not taking advantage of it. Rest spamming is one example. Wholesale slaughter/genocide is another. Quests that involve a peaceful option to resolve that get turned around after completion when the player murders the saved parties is a familiar expression of this sort of degeneration. If XP is linked to quests and objectives within quests, the player has much more freedom to resolve those quests in whatever way he or she wants, whether that means talking through it, fighting, sneaking around, or using some mixture of skills/scripted environment objects to reach the goal.

There's nothing wrong with defeating Firkraag being a quest or objective all in itself. That's what I meant before. There's nothing wrong with explicitly associating XP with defeating specific enemies or specific groups of monsters as part of a quest where it makes sense. If the quest is "clear the slums" and you're supposed to get rid of the kobolds, the goblins, and the orcs, you might be able to sneak/talk your way through that, but you're probably going to "get rid" of them with some magic missiles and axes to the face.

I've just observed too much post-quest Black Ops slaughter to believe that players are going to behave differently when they can squeeze 1xp out of a peasant's head.


What are your thoughts on that?

Well, my problem with this is just that, in order to avoid behavior from the player that hurts himself, Obsidian will end up taking away some legitimate playstyles that despite (or maybe, because of) being a little more unpredictable to the developers, are fun and legitimate. I get that feeling a lot with Obsidian design. In order to make the game functional, they try to streamline the experience, while I would rather have them make it even more baroque and worked over, allowing some of the broken playstyles to end up being legitimate and fun. Now, I am not that dumb, I know doing this will still leave the game broken to a lot of people. But, I don't actually care about them. What I care is that the game now has all these interesting, different ways of being played. If some people would rather shoot themselves on the foot and then complain about the game, well it is no my problem.

That said, I don't expect Obsidian to do this or that. I just like arguing about game design. Most of the time, when I make posts around here, people never reply to anything I said. So, when people actually start talking about this or that feature, and which is better and why, well, I love it! So sorry if I end up looking a bit unpolite, I don't want to seem rude, I was just curious about your comment about this being P&P like. sometimes I will get on conversations that I know people are feeling touchy yet because, even so, I love to argue about this stuff. This may make me seem overly eager, or too zealous for one side of the issue. I am really sorry about this, I just want to argue about design.

 

[oldmanpaco]

Gene Wolfs is my favorite author.

Also don't ever change your tag or no one will know what I'm talking about.

 

[maverick]

Wtf are you watching, PlanHex? Also, when's the last time you pooped? Maybe you need to poop.

MCA playing D&D Live on http://www.ustream.tv/channel/project-eternity-live-stream

Gotta go sleep too, damn...

 

[Alex]

Man, if the experience system:

- Rewards you for your efforts
- Lets you develop your character
- Is not a horrible pain in the ass to keep track of

Then I don't give a fuck about the implementation, it works. You people are really overthinking this shit.


No, he's not. Don't even continue this because everyone involved is completely wrong

Experience systems are the beating heart of most long term RPGs. And the ones where it isn't, it is because the system is actually disguised as something else.

 

[Jaesun]

SO a system that is more like an actual PnP session is bad, and dumbing down?

Uh? PnP games have rewards for combat.

Here Alex are the actual quotes posted from Sawyer:

Tim and I would rather not give XP for general killin' because it leads to a lot of weird/degenerate scenarios, but I have no problem with having quests oriented specifically around killing and receiving XP for achieving sub-objectives/the main goal.

Gameplay degeneration occurs when a player engages in gameplay not because they enjoy that gameplay but because the game's mechanics put the player at a disadvantage for not taking advantage of it. Rest spamming is one example. Wholesale slaughter/genocide is another. Quests that involve a peaceful option to resolve that get turned around after completion when the player murders the saved parties is a familiar expression of this sort of degeneration. If XP is linked to quests and objectives within quests, the player has much more freedom to resolve those quests in whatever way he or she wants, whether that means talking through it, fighting, sneaking around, or using some mixture of skills/scripted environment objects to reach the goal.

There's nothing wrong with defeating Firkraag being a quest or objective all in itself. That's what I meant before. There's nothing wrong with explicitly associating XP with defeating specific enemies or specific groups of monsters as part of a quest where it makes sense. If the quest is "clear the slums" and you're supposed to get rid of the kobolds, the goblins, and the orcs, you might be able to sneak/talk your way through that, but you're probably going to "get rid" of them with some magic missiles and axes to the face.

I've just observed too much post-quest Black Ops slaughter to believe that players are going to behave differently when they can squeeze 1xp out of a peasant's head.


What are your thoughts on that?

Well, my problem with this is just that, in order to avoid behavior from the player that hurts himself, Obsidian will end up taking away some legitimate playstyles that despite (or maybe, because of) being a little more unpredictable to the developers, are fun and legitimate.

An example?

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

Also don't ever change your tag or no one will know what I'm talking about.

Oh, totally. I know. For all the important futurepeople reading the 307th page of this lame thread.

 

[wormix]

This argument against 'goal-oriented' XP gain is filled with so many flaws I'm not even going to bother addressing it fully.

But if you're not against a system the rewards you with XP for sneaking past enemies, then why is it that the person who optimises their XP gain by killing the same enemis afterwards an idiot, and not the person who LARPs and continues on?

 

[ravenshrike]

You can sort of grind monsters for xp in the Pathfinder Kingmaker adventure path. but that's because building the kingdom when done realistically takes 20-30 years in game. well, unless you break the economy. then you can do it in 5

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

Fucking people and their fucking default avatars. I don't even read your fucking posts if you can't bother.

 

[Alex]

An example?

Not exactly what I mean, but stuff like this:



Basically, I don't want them to have too much of a heavy hand controlling the game so the game can be played in ways different than the ones they expect or plan for.

Also don't ever change your tag or no one will know what I'm talking about.

Oh, totally. I know. For all the important futurepeople reading the 307th page of this lame thread.

Ok, ok. then don't change it because Gene Wolfe is awesome, how about that?

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

Ok, ok. then don't change it because Gene Wolfe is awesome, how about that?

Better.

 

[Jaesun]

An example?

Basically, I don't want them to have too much of a heavy hand controlling the game so the game can be played in ways different than the ones they expect or plan for.

Very good point. THAT I can agree with.

 

[LeStryfe79]

I've always thought completing quests should award Coin and Rep, but not XP. For example, you gain XP from reading a book or fighting a dangerous threat, and not from telling somebody that you did these things. How do I earn less XP from clearing a cave of monsters simply because nobody told me to do it? That scenario sounds a little too gamy to me.

 

[Volourn]

"I've always thought completing quests should award Coin and Rep, but not XP. For example, you gain XP from reading a book or fighting a dangerous threat, and not from telling somebody that you did these things. How do I earn less XP from clearing a cave of monsters simply because nobody told me to do it? That scenario sounds a little too gamy to me"

That could be a cool way to do things. Not without flaws, but it could be workable.

 

[Gurkog]

I've always thought completing quests should award Coin and Rep, but not XP. For example, you gain XP from reading a book or fighting a dangerous threat, and not from telling somebody that you did these things. How do I earn less XP from clearing a cave of monsters simply because nobody told me to do it? That scenario sounds a little too gamy to me.

They could reward XP for dungeon areas that are cleared of opponents even if the areas are not related to any quests. How the player goes about removing the hostile beasties is inconsequential as long as the game awards achievement. They can simply add that in for every area full of hostile shit, if they wanted.

 

[Grimlorn]

"I've always thought completing quests should award Coin and Rep, but not XP. For example, you gain XP from reading a book or fighting a dangerous threat, and not from telling somebody that you did these things. How do I earn less XP from clearing a cave of monsters simply because nobody told me to do it? That scenario sounds a little too gamy to me"

That could be a cool way to do things. Not without flaws, but it could be workable.

I use to think this way before I started playing crpgs and it does make more sense in general. You're not going to get better at fighting by running back and forth and completing fedex quests. But getting experience for completing quests is a better system overall. If you want to give xp for killing mobs, it should be small similar to the way PST did it where it doesn't really contribute much to leveling. This way makes it easier to balance the game and you can control the progression better and add more side quest content without worrying about level scaling so the player doesn't become so powerful as to trivialize the main quest or mid to late game encounters. There should also probably be finite mobs too if they give xp. But if it's so small it doesn't add much to leveling up then I guess it doesn't matter much.

I'd much rather have a challenging game with lots of stuff to do rather than simply get xp for every mob I kill and that be the main way to level up. In a linear game it's fine though.

 

[Volourn]

"They could reward XP for dungeon areas that are cleared of opponents even if the areas are not related to any quests. How the player goes about removing the hostile beasties is inconsequential as long as the game awards achievement. They can simply add that in for every area full of hostile shit, if they wanted."

That silly. That be like if BIO had done it that way in BG1 and it made you slaughter every single last xfart on the map. That's ridiculous. I want to be award for all encounters I take aprt in without feeling like I need to 'sweep' a map.


"I kill and that be the main way to level up."

Whose claiming that this is what they want? I surely ain't.

DnD99% of pnp games and most CRPGs have done this right. You get xp for quest completion and combat. The better crpgs also reward you for using skills outside fo combat (either in dialogue or otherwise), removing trasp, picking locks, etc.,e tc. That's the way it should be.

 

[Grimlorn]

"I kill and that be the main way to level up."

Whose claiming that this is what they want? I surely ain't.

DnD99% of pnp games and most CRPGs have done this right. You get xp for quest completion and combat. The better crpgs also reward you for using skills outside fo combat (either in dialogue or otherwise), removing trasp, picking locks, etc.,e tc. That's the way it should be.

I'm just saying they should put creating a challenging game with great encounters over giving xp for every little thing you do. Yeah it would be nice to get xp for everything but I can leave it for a better designed game. And yeah you can add a few xp for removing traps and killing mobs, but people would still complain that the xp is trivial and doesn't add anything to leveling.

There is a difference between what is ideal and what is practical. There is going to be trade offs in designing certain systems. Just like the new cooldown/vancian system Sawyer is talking about.

 

[Gurkog]

"They could reward XP for dungeon areas that are cleared of opponents even if the areas are not related to any quests. How the player goes about removing the hostile beasties is inconsequential as long as the game awards achievement. They can simply add that in for every area full of hostile shit, if they wanted."

That silly. That be like if BIO had done it that way in BG1 and it made you slaughter every single last xfart on the map. That's ridiculous. I want to be award for all encounters I take aprt in without feeling like I need to 'sweep' a map.


"I kill and that be the main way to level up."

Whose claiming that this is what they want? I surely ain't.

DnD99% of pnp games and most CRPGs have done this right. You get xp for quest completion and combat. The better crpgs also reward you for using skills outside fo combat (either in dialogue or otherwise), removing trasp, picking locks, etc.,e tc. That's the way it should be.

The Idea being that all skills are rewarded upon reaching an objective and not, 'get xp for ever lock picked, trap disarmed, NPC seduced socialized, but no xp for each time the combat skill is used.' Your whole argument revolves around combat not being rewarded for its explicit use when, in fact, NO skills are being rewarded upon use. The objective is all that matters.

EDIT: I should stop feeding the trolls