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

[Leimreу]

Firstly, you don't know what the makeup of a player's character or party will be. So what you designed to be the hard path could in fact be an easy path.

Well, in an ideal scenario when money and man hours are not an issue, it would make sense to attach some sort of challenge rating for every solution in every encounter. The difficulty of the solution relative to the party could be judged by determining the CR of the party for this particular solution (which could be calculated based on the party size and composition) and then comparing it with the solution CR. But again, keep in mind that this is not my main point.

If a player chooses a hard path, so be it. I don't see why he should get a greater reward than a player who found an easier way to achieve the same goal.

Well, this is where I can't argue with you, since these are opinions and they have an interesting property of being subjective.

 

[Volourn]

"SoZ was a magnificent game shrouded in a shit engine. It just wasn't cut out for open world maps and random encounters. Volourn didn't like it due to a lack of romance options. Also, SoZ had an amazing soundtrack."

You are an idiot. I don't like it because it sucks.

Why not do a search and see how many of those silly romance threads I bother with. Codexers are more into romances than I am. I bet have those positive romancers in Obsidian forums are actually Codexers hiding it from their Codexian 'bros'. R00fles!


P.S. SOZ sucks. Plain and simple.

Yay, let's have a one rtoom building and clal it a dungeon. FUCK LOL

 

[tuluse]

Well, this is where I can't argue with you, since these are opinions and they have an interesting property of being subjective.

You can always argue about opinions, if you do it well you can even change people's minds sometimes.

I fail to see any good reasons to reward players for taking a hard route to accomplishing a task when an easy one is available. Ideally, there shouldn't be obvious hard and easy, but rather you should take the path that your character or party is suited to.

 

[bminorkey]

P.S. SOZ sucks. Plain and simple.

But why, Volly? Share your wisdom with us. I'm sure we'd all like to see you type out an argument for once.

 

[Leimreу]

Well, you will get your XP and gold for dissipating the angry mob (goal)

But this amount of xp will be set in stone. It will be independent of the difficulty of this particular task relative to the party. This is my main point. A party of 6 fighters will get the same amount of xp as a party of 6 rogues. A process focused system allows you (in theory) to modify the xp rewards based on the difficulty of the task, relative to your party. I know it's difficult to implement, hence i wrote that a goal focused system gives you more bang per buck.

 

[bminorkey]

Well, you will get your XP and gold for dissipating the angry mob (goal)

But this amount of xp will be set in stone. It will be independent of the difficulty of this particular task relative to the party. This is my main point. A party of 6 fighters will get the same amount of xp as a party of 6 rogues. A process focused system allows you (in theory) to modify the xp rewards based on the difficulty of the task, relative to your party. I know it's difficult to implement, hence i wrote that a goal focused system gives you more bang per buck.

Again, it's a false dichotomy. For everything that might be considered a process, you can create sub-objectives and evaluate their reward based on party composition. I get your main point - rewards should be relative to difficulty, taking party composition into account - but you can't frame it as "goal" vs "process" dilemma because there is no difference in practice.

edit #12: jesus fucking christ it took me a trillion edits to get that clause right
edit #13: a trillion and one*

 

[The Bishop]

*The* bishop? The one I'm thinking of?

Not sure.

Which is awesome and "cinematic"? The enemy managed to turn the tides of battle with a well placed backstab? And isn't that what various protective spells and trusted comrades are for? I mean, you don't just put your mage in the middle, tell him to commence casting diabolical spells, and forget about him, do you?

Well, a mage is not a Death Star, so it's not a single saving throw, that's the point. I agree that a single throw should not decide the outcome of a fight, but there are many different ways to deal with it and going with the Protoss' shields isn't the best one.

A mage should be protected, both by spells, which will take time and reduce his offensive power, and party members, not by convoluted mechanics aimed to prevent him from dying prematurely.

The coin toss you speak of is the direct result of a failure on the player's part. One of the best fights in IWD2 was the fight for the holy avenger. Keeping your mages alive there was a real challenge.

A very specific example. Just as you enter planar prison in BG2 you being attacked by bounty hunters, one of which is invisible rogue with Boots of Speed and +3 dagger on him. He runs directly to the weakest of your mages and stabs him.

Your position is determined by the game as you exit portal. Your front is too wide to cover and there is a way to circle you around from the back anyway, so fighters aren't of much help. You could cast glitterdust directly at the rogue, or hide in a resilent sphere or sanctuary (in case of mage/cleric), none of which you have any reason to do since you don't know if there's a rogue out there, especially considering that you didn't face threat of rogues up until this point in the game. You could also try casting protection from magical weapons (from the scroll, your level isn't high enough to remember this spell), which again makes no sense to do unless you know exactly what's coming at you. Finally you could mirror self, which is a theoretically plausible reaction (although, again, not warranted by the situation), yet this still means that your life and death are up to a chance.

Realistically speaking, all the effective solutions for this particular situation lie in the area of metagaming. But even if it wasn't the case, that's not quite my point. What I'm talking about is not that there's no way to succeed, but that success or failure are too volatile, and too much volatility is a bad thing. Let me illustrate my point.

Let's say you play a typical FPS, except that this particular one places one land mine somewhere on each level. The mine can be detected by a small hump on the ground if you look very closely. If you step on it you instantly die - game over.

Now, does it make impossible to complete the level? No. Even if it's incredibly difficult to spot the mine, it's your fault if you can't, isn't it? The enemy managed to turn the tides of battle with a well placed land mine. And you don't just run around the map carelessly when you know there can be a land mine somewhere, do you? All of the arguments you used above are applicable in this case. But would you consider such a mechanic a good idea?

 

[Leimreу]

I fail to see any good reasons to reward players for taking a hard route to accomplishing a task when an easy one is available. Ideally, there shouldn't be obvious hard and easy, but rather you should take the path that your character or party is suited to.

Well, I think that a greater challenge gives you more opportunity to learn. What is experience in RPGs? It is a measure of what the character has learned during some encounter. The more difficult the task, the more time and effort must be spent to finish it (I know it's not always true, but it IS true in most cases, I believe). Hence, the amount of xp given should be modified by the difficulty of the task, relative to your party. Another case to consider is how effective your character is at learning something from a particular encounter. Hence I proposed the "class" and "cross class" solution system, but it's obviously too sophisticated to implement.

 

[tuluse]

What is experience in RPGs?

I think this question is about as big as "what is an rpg?"

I also don't think difficulty is a good proxy for how much someone has learned. I found math easier than spelling and I learned a lot more math than spelling in school.

 

[bminorkey]

What is experience in RPGs? It is a measure of what the character has learned during some encounter. The more difficult the task, the more time and effort must be spent to finish it (I know it's not always true, but it IS true in most cases, I believe). Hence, the amount of xp given should be modified by the difficulty of the task, relative to your party. Another case to consider is how effective your character is at learning something from a particular encounter. Hence I proposed the "class" and "cross class" solution system, but it's obviously too sophisticated to implement.

Not to double-team you or anything, but because RPG mechanics are in the first place a huge abstraction, this kind of selective realism makes for a pretty weak argument. Gameplay comes first. In any case, 'experience' is really an arbitrary name: you could rename it to 'progress' or 'souls' or whatever without breaking the concept in the least.

My own opinion? Rewards should generally be based on how cool / effective / far-reaching the action is.

 

[Leimreу]

Well, you will get your XP and gold for dissipating the angry mob (goal)

But this amount of xp will be set in stone. It will be independent of the difficulty of this particular task relative to the party. This is my main point. A party of 6 fighters will get the same amount of xp as a party of 6 rogues. A process focused system allows you (in theory) to modify the xp rewards based on the difficulty of the task, relative to your party. I know it's difficult to implement, hence i wrote that a goal focused system gives you more bang per buck.

Again, it's a false dichotomy. For everything that might be considered a process, you can create sub-objectives and evaluate their reward based on party composition. I get your main point - rewards should be relative to difficulty, taking party composition into account - but you can't frame it as "goal" vs "process" dilemma because there is no difference in practice.

edit #12: jesus fucking christ it took me a trillion edits to get that clause right
edit #13: a trillion and one*

Yeah, now when I've thought about it more, it seems that making a distinction between goal focused and process focused systems is an error in and of itself. Since you can decompose any process into a certain amount of sub goals. The main thing, though, is that the xp rewards for each and every of these goals would be variable, based on the difficulty of this particular goal relative to the party abilities. Or at least this is how I see things.

 

[Leimreу]

What is experience in RPGs?

I think this question is about as big as "what is an rpg?"

I also don't think difficulty is a good proxy for how much someone has learned.

It is a good factor, which can be used to estimate how much one has learned, but it's definitely not the only one.

What is experience in RPGs? It is a measure of what the character has learned during some encounter. The more difficult the task, the more time and effort must be spent to finish it (I know it's not always true, but it IS true in most cases, I believe). Hence, the amount of xp given should be modified by the difficulty of the task, relative to your party. Another case to consider is how effective your character is at learning something from a particular encounter. Hence I proposed the "class" and "cross class" solution system, but it's obviously too sophisticated to implement.

Not to double-team you or anything, but because RPG mechanics are in the first place a huge abstraction, this kind of selective realism makes for a pretty weak argument. Gameplay comes first. In any case, 'experience' is really an arbitrary name: you could rename it to 'progress' or 'souls' or whatever without breaking the concept in the least.

My own opinion? Rewards should generally be based on how cool / effective / far-reaching the action is.

Then it all boils down to the definition of "experience". If you consider xp as a measure of learning, then giving larger xp rewards for harder tasks is justified. But if you see xp as some sort of abstract resource which is used to judge the increment in party or character efficiency, then you can come up with any number of rules that govern how this resource should be distributed.

 

[Dexter]

Personally SoZ is at the bottom two of Obsidians games on my list, along with Dungeon Siege 3, I mean I guess the overland map was interesting but other than that I don't remember the game having any redeeming qualities whatsoever.
It was mostly about combat, although as proven time and time again Obsidian can't really into combat, instead of being story-based like MOTB or even the OC. Unsurprisingly most combat/combat encounters was/were shit though and there was a lot of repetition.
Level design and general design of the game seemed to be at "fan made" levels overall, shit dungeon layout/design and a lot of the other places were kinda bad and looked like they were put together in a hurry, even in relation to NWN2.

 

[Vault Dweller]

A very specific example

Of bad design?

Just as you enter planar prison in BG2 you being attacked by bounty hunters, one of which is invisible rogue with Boots of Speed and +3 dagger on him. He runs directly to the weakest of your mages and stabs him.

Your position is determined by the game as you exit portal. Your front is too wide to cover and there is a way to circle you around from the back anyway, so fighters aren't of much help. You could cast glitterdust directly at the rogue, or hide in a resilent sphere or sanctuary (in case of mage/cleric), none of which you have any reason to do since you don't know if there's a rogue out there, especially considering that you didn't face threat of rogues up until this point in the game. You could also try casting protection from magical weapons (from the scroll, your level isn't high enough to remember this spell), which again makes no sense to do unless you know exactly what's coming at you. Finally you could mirror self, which is a theoretically plausible reaction (although, again, not warranted by the situation), yet this still means that your life and death are up to a chance.

First, casting protection/detection spells when you enter a mysterious, otherworldly place makes a lot of sense. Walking around like it's a stroll in a park doesn't.

Second, BG2 had two main threats: mages and invisible rogues dealing crazy modifier damage. Thus, a wise adventurer had to ensure two things: be able to strip down mages' protection spells and see rogues before they could strike you. Every game has some specific challenges that you need to be understand and be ready for. I don't think it's meta-gaming.

So, overall, while I don't think that ambushing the player and sending invisible rogues the moment he steps through the doorway is an example of good design or an example that highlights the need for the "Protoss shields", the sneak attack certainly wasn't completely unexpected and the player was given plenty of different spells and abilities to protect his or her party.

Let's say you play a typical FPS, except that this particular one places one land mine somewhere on each level. The mine can be detected by a small hump on the ground if you look very closely. If you step on it you instantly die - game over.

Do you have examples of good design, by any chance?

If you're looking for something that justifies the need for more pylons, how about this:

You have 30 HP. You enter the area and are immediately shot in the face for 32 points of damage. Without the stamina system, you're dead!

 

[Spectacle]

I don't know, it feels "off" kinda.

I really hope this is not final angle they'll use in the game

They said they plan to use multiple angles, a higher one for indoors and a lower one for outdoors.

Nice, do you have a source for that? Didn't know it before

I guess that's an advantage of using 3d graphics for the characters, it makes it easy to change the view angle to anything you want without the characters looking askew.

 

[Leimreу]

So, overall, while I don't think that ambushing the player and sending invisible rogues the moment he steps through the doorway is an example of good design

The concept of "good" design is an ambiguous one. Some people really like challenge to the point where they gladly accept unfair advantages in favor of a better fight. I think that sending invisible rogues after the player is an example of good design as long as the player has some means to counter them (doesn't matter whether or not the player actually invested in acquiring these means, he should be able to acquire them hypothetically up to that point; it's his own fault he didn't prepare properly), since it offers a challenging, but not an unfair encounter.

Regarding rogues in BG2, vanilla BG2 doesn't offer much in the way of challenging rogues. However, the Improved Mae'Var component from the Tactics mod fixes that. Besides, any self respecting mage should have a stoneskin up no matter where he is or what he does, which effectively negates the rogue's sneak attack. Other classes have good hit points or can deal with invisible rogues by other means (rogues can become invisible themselves by gulping down potions of invisibility), so there's really no incentive to gimp AI rogues in BG2.

 

[oldmanpaco]

So how long before this thread peters out? Can we get to 500 pages? 600?

Dare I say it - 1000!

Only 18 more months until the game is released! Only two years until the expansion!

 

[The Bishop]

Of bad design?

Perhaps that too, although realistically speaking, no game is going to have flawless encounters throughout.

First, casting protection/detection spells when you enter a mysterious, otherworldly place makes a lot of sense. Walking around like it's a stroll in a park doesn't.

Second, BG2 had two main threats: mages and invisible rogues dealing crazy modifier damage. Thus, a wise adventurer had to ensure two things: be able to strip down mages' protection spells and see rogues before they could strike you. Every game has some specific challenges that you need to be understand and be ready for. I don't think it's meta-gaming.

So, overall, while I don't think that ambushing the player and sending invisible rogues the moment he steps through the doorway is an example of good design or an example that highlights the need for the "Protoss shields", the sneak attack certainly wasn't completely unexpected and the player was given plenty of different spells and abilities to protect his or her party.

As I mentioned, there's nothing you realistically can do about this encounter unless you anticipate exactly the thing that's coming at you. The best detection spell you got at this point - True Seeing doesn't help and your mages should be busy "stripping down protection spells" of several very dangerous enemy mages also present on the scene.

Also stamina isn't really similar to protoss shield. Protoss shield prevents you from taking damage until it's depleted. You can keep losing it then recharging it back forever. The way Sawyer describes it, health/stamina system looks more like a normal hp bar with healing limiter.

Do you have examples of good design, by any chance?

If you're looking for something that justifies the need for more pylons, how about this:

You have 30 HP. You enter the area and are immediately shot in the face for 32 points of damage. Without the stamina system, you're dead!

But this isn't quite equivalent to my example, is it? You can avoid that random land mine. It's just difficult. But the problem is not difficulty. The problem is that such a game is built around the player making a random blunder, not playing badly. This is what I'm trying to communicate here. A good game mechanic should rather rely on player mastery of the system than trying to catch him on a slightest misstep. That is, of course, if we talking about something more cerebral than Super Meat Boy.

 

[The Bishop]

Regarding rogues in BG2, vanilla BG2 doesn't offer much in the way of challenging rogues. However, the Improved Mae'Var component from the Tactics mod fixes that. Besides, any self respecting mage should have a stoneskin up no matter where he is or what he does, which effectively negates the rogue's sneak attack.

I remember the stoneskin on my mage was dispelled in the previous engagement and I could only afford to have one at that level. Perhaps if I spammed rest it could be easier to go through that particular engagement (or any engagement for that matter). My point still stands.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Of bad design?

Perhaps that too, although realistically speaking, no game is going to have flawless encounters throughout.

Of course. And these flawed designs can be a lot of fun too, but they shouldn't be used as an example or a reason for changes. You fix one minor issue that's not really an issue, you introduce new issues elsewhere.

As I mentioned, there's nothing you realistically can do about this encounter unless you anticipate exactly the thing that's coming at you.

Shouldn't you? Be ready and protect against one thing that can instantly kill your mage? See the post above.

As for the best detection spells available, you can go there early and be surprised or you can go there later and be well prepared. If I recall correctly, you aren't forced to go there at a certain point. If you go there early, sure, you'll probably die, reload, and then have to figure out how to beat the fuckers. Which is what makes encounters fun.

The way I see it, if you can beat most encounters without reloading, the game isn't worth playing.

Also stamina isn't really similar to protoss shield. Protoss shield prevents you from taking damage until it's depleted. You can keep losing it then recharging it back forever. The way Sawyer describes it, health/stamina system looks more like a normal hp bar with healing limiter.

It's similar though. You have an easily restorable "outer HP layer" and not so easily restorable "inner layer". The former acts as a shield. Keep it up and you're going to be ok. As I understand, you will be able to regenerate it, which, in a real time game, can lead to exploits far worse than the problems you described.

But this isn't quite equivalent to my example, is it? You can avoid that random land mine. It's just difficult. But the problem is not difficulty. The problem is that such a game is built around the player making a random blunder, not playing badly. This is what I'm trying to communicate here. A good game mechanic should rather rely on player mastery of the system than trying to catch him on a slightest misstep. That is, of course, if we talking about something more cerebral than Super Meat Boy.

Well, let's say it (random blunder) is a problem. It makes more sense to reduce the "blunder factor" by reducing critical hit damage in your BG2 example than by adding a force shield to your health bar. Nobody should be able to kill anyone with a single attack. See? Problem solved.

 

[Leimreу]

Stoneskin is a long duration buff. You can cast it on yourself, remove the spell from your spellbook, then rest and it will still be in effect. It is literally the first layer of defense for any mage in any encounter that involves enemies with physical attacks. If you're not wearing a stoneskin AT ALL TIMES with your mage, then you're not utilizing the full repertoire of spells available. Since the game does not punish you from spamming sleep, this is entirely your fault. You cannot properly judge the difficulty of an encounter without utilizing every option you have and knowing the ins and outs of the system. You should also have as many extra stoneskin scrolls on you as possible for situations, when enemies spam dispel or remove magic.

 

[The Bishop]

Of course. And these flawed designs can be a lot of fun too, but they shouldn't be used as an example or a reason for changes. You fix one minor issue that's not really an issue, you introduce new issues elsewhere.

I don't think that the issue is minor though. As I mentioned before, this particular example from BG2 isn't the entirety of the problem. There's just too much stuff that instantly and irreversibly kill you in that game.

Shouldn't you? Be ready and protect against one thing that can instantly kill your mage? See the post above.

Yeah, I see I could do better there. Still, since that example isn't central for my argument...

As for the best detection spells available, you can go there early and be surprised or you can go there later and be well prepared. If I recall correctly, you aren't forced to go there at a certain point. If you go there early, sure, you'll probably die, reload, and then have to figure out how to beat the fuckers. Which is what makes encounters fun.

The way I see it, if you can beat most encounters without reloading, the game isn't worth playing.

And that I can wholeheartedly agree with. I'm absolutely ok with having my party decimated by clever strategy that move by move defeats mine. What I'm not ok with is figuratively speaking "stepping on that random land mine".

It's similar though. You have an easily restorable "outer HP layer" and not so easily restorable "inner layer". The former acts as a shield. Keep it up and you're going to be ok. As I understand, you will be able to regenerate it, which, in a real time game, can lead to exploits far worse than the problems you described.

From the Sawyer's explanation it doesn't seem that stamina is going to have any shielding qualities:

"Here's an example. Bob the Fighter has 32 Stamina and 30 Health. He gets hit by a number of attacks that subtract 25 Stamina and 5 health (leaving him with 8 Stamina and 25 Health). He is a fighter, so he chooses to use one of his abilities to regenerate Stamina. He does this and quickly bounces from 8 Stamina to 15. Unfortunately, he gets smacked again for 20 Stamina and 4 Health. He is knocked out (effectively 0 Stamina) and at 21 Health. The guys who knocked him out move to other targets.

Francine the priest casts restore stamina on Bob when combat is over. He recovers to full Stamina quickly, but is still at 21 Health. Depending on how the next few fights go, they will either have to retreat to rest or find a safe resting spot up ahead."

Both stamina and health are damaged simultaneously, and while health is damaged less, that damage doesn't seem to be connected with the amount of stamina left.

Well, let's say it (random blunder) is a problem. It makes more sense to reduce the "blunder factor" by reducing critical hit damage in your BG2 example than by adding a force shield to your health bar. Nobody should be able to kill anyone with a single attack. See? Problem solved.

But wouldn't that in turn create situation when no spell or ability is particularly efficient and you need to literally bomb your opponent with fireballs, Dragon Age style, to have any effect out of them. What I see health/stamina system trying to accomplish is retaining serious damage of spells and abilities from IE games, but reducing randomness of engagements at the same time. In other words they would rather you lose battles as whole instead of instakilling individual characters in your party. And if you do lose characters, this got to be clearly your fault, not just concatenation of circumstances.

 

[Volourn]

"Stoneskin is a long duration buff. You can cast it on yourself, remove the spell from your spellbook, then rest and it will still be in effect. It is literally the first layer of defense for any mage in any encounter that involves enemies with physical attacks. If you're not wearing a stoneskin AT ALL TIMES with your mage, then you're not utilizing the full repertoire of spells available. Since the game does not punish you from spamming sleep, this is entirely your fault. You cannot properly judge the difficulty of an encounter without utilizing every option you have and knowing the ins and outs of the system. You should also have as many extra stoneskin scrolls on you as possible for situations, when enemies spam dispel or remove magic"

EPIC DND NERD FAIL.

 

[Hegel]

Yeah lol, stoneskin lasted only 12 hours, I don't remember (haven't been played vanilla in ages) if it was reset by resting.
However stoneskin + teleport field + mirror image was the bread and butter my sorcerer lived upon.

 

[wormix]

An important side effect of this system is that it now actually matters who's taking damage. Healing 20 damage from your fighter, or 20 damage from your wizard is the same with a traditional health system.

With the stamina/health system it makes each individuals ability to protect themselves more important. Darklands is the extreme of this where you'd be crazy not to have a character with less than 30 strength and endurance. However PE is tuned it will be more forgiving, and this is by design.

There's a quote on the SA forums from Sawyer about not using the Darklands system for this very reason.