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

[evdk]

herostratus
"Top of the pack" is Grunker's beef, my main source of ire is the stash.

 

[Captain Shrek]

Arguing about inventory.

 

[evdk]

This is the Codex, of course we are arguing about the inventory.

 

[Broseph]

This is the Codex. Everyone argues about everything.

 

[Grunker]

So I still haven't seen any good explanation why this new inventory is so bad, except for the same old codex buzzwords. You guys realize that if the entire "top of the pack" thing is implemented, it adds more of a strategic layer to the inventory than there ever was in IE? As mentioned (and never contested) inventory management in IE was busywork at best, and contained no strategic thought. As the top of the pack thing adds a nonzero amount of strategy, it is you guys who are being consoletards for whining about increased strategic debth.


Typical declinefags.

You're more observant than to use such a blatant strawman. Find each and every post about inventory from me and show where I complain about the inventory in the manner you suggest. I complain that the inventory might use a list-function or system, which is much more messy than the IE-inventory.

Besides, this is a complete diversion from the fact that we were arguing on the basis of a bunch of things, and you pick out inventory as though it was our most glorious and prime example of TEH DECLINE.

So basically yeah, typical declinefags.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Bioware makes crappy shared inventory systems = Oh my god decline decline etc etc

Obsidian says they're using a similar system = GREAT IDEA, INVENTORY WAS ALWAYS A CHORE etc etc

Pretty much. Bioware changed inventory system purely to make it work on a gamepad, so there was at least a rationale of sort, even if one associated with the decline.

 

[Grunker]

oh shit

Lyric Suite agrees with me. I contend I may be wrong indeed

 

[Oesophagus]

grid inventory or gtfo

 

[Lancehead]

There is this response from Sawyer on weight allowances from a while back:

I think weight allowance is something that needs to be analyzed along with other system goals. The primary reasoning is that if things have weight and you have a carry limit, the weight of things you choose to carry is a strategic consideration. The problem is that the relationship between weight and value (usually tactical) is not directly proportional. Especially when it comes to weapons, you can get into a weird cost-benefit analysis that often doesn't make sense.

E.g. the Minigun in F:NV is a pretty good weapon. It's also very heavy. Is it better than the Anti-Materiel Rifle or Brush Gun? In certain circumstances, yes, but it's not "objectively" better. Three weapons with different tactical applications at roughly the same level of power, but one weighs much more than the others.

An even more extreme case is the Fat Man. In the original release of F:NV, the Fat Man did pretty modest damage, but it still weighed a ton. The patched version increased the damage a lot and GRA introduced "low-end" ammo for it, but ultimately its use wasn't particularly tactical. For 99% of all fights, players kept the Fat Man jammed in their back pockets, only pulling it out when they effectively didn't want to fight.

DX:HR illustrates this conflict even more clearly. The Rocket Launcher and even the Sniper Rifle are huge weapons. Carrying them around is a large strategic liability, and their usage/applicability in any given scenario is often either pointless or overkill.

This can also cause consideration conflicts in armor. In F:NV, heavy armor protected better than light armor, but it slowed the player down and weighed more. The consideration was not simply DT/movement, but DT/movement/weight, which motivated more people to use light or medium armor. In the original Fallout, protection generally increased with weight (excepting Metal Armor, sort of), so there was a strategic trade-off, but that effectively ended with Power Armor. PA and HPA granted +3 ST, so the increased weight of the armor was offset by the player's adjusted max carry. Practically speaking, this meant there was no good reason to use Combat Armor or Brotherhood Combat Armor once you gained PA or HPA.

What does all of this mean? It means I think we (myself included) often take weight allowance and item weights (or slots, or whatever abstraction) for granted instead of considering how they influence players' strategic decisions.

http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/352126040920847365

It seems quite clear that with Eternity's inventory system he's most concerned with making it a good strategic exercise, and he might be seeing micromanagement as something that gets in the way, so he's removing any and all hassle with it.

 

[Captain Shrek]

There is this response from Sawyer on weight allowances from a while back:

What does all of this mean? .

http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/352126040920847365
.

All it means is that he does not get how irrelevant these things were in those games.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Heh, i liked this part:

DX:HR illustrates this conflict even more clearly. The Rocket Launcher and even the Sniper Rifle are huge weapons. Carrying them around is a large strategic liability, and their usage/applicability in any given scenario is often either pointless or overkill.

Sniping enemies pointless? In my Deus Ex? Shit game appears to be shit then.

But i digress. To be frank, i'm not exactly sure how this new system is supposed to work, just a lot of talk about why the old system was bad even though it wasn't. All this talk about the strategic value of inventory where all it comes down to is whether we can satisfy our kleptomaniac urges or not.

 

[Lancehead]

All it means is that he does not get how irrelevant these things were in those games.

That was because how generous they were with the allowances. New Vegas especially.

 

[Oesophagus]

Fallout 2 added car trunk
problem solved

edit:

Heh, i liked this part:

DX:HR illustrates this conflict even more clearly. The Rocket Launcher and even the Sniper Rifle are huge weapons. Carrying them around is a large strategic liability, and their usage/applicability in any given scenario is often either pointless or overkill.

Sniping enemies pointless? In my Deus Ex? Shit game appears to be shit then.

Sawyer must've been playing it wrong then. I used nothing but

 

[Captain Shrek]

All it means is that he does not get how irrelevant these things were in those games.

That was because how generous they were with the allowances. New Vegas especially.

I wonder who designed that game.

 

[Gondolin]

Arguing about inventory.

Inventory is very important for removal purposes.

 

[marooned]

With the inventory system I have the feeling they're trying to fix something ain't broken. Inventory management in the IE games was just fine. A few UI improvements and options and it's perfect. What the hell is the "top of the back" and stash? Why the need? I don't get it.

Not having the full inventory available in combat sounds good but the thing with the stash I think I don't fully understand. He means that, for example, when you loot a chest and put a sword you found there in you "stash", you then can't retrieve that sword until you go to your house or whatever?

 

[Lancehead]

That's the strategic decision he wants to include there, whether to put the sword in the stash or in the pack.

 

[Delterius]

With the inventory system I have the feeling they're trying to fix something ain't broken. Inventory management in the IE games was just fine. A few UI improvements and options and it's perfect. What the hell is the "top of the back" and stash? Why the need? I don't get it.

Not having the full inventory available in combat sounds good but the thing with the stash I think I don't fully understand. He means that, for example, when you loot a chest and put a sword you found there in you "stash", you then can't retrieve that sword until you go to your house or whatever?

Pretty much, what Sawyer is doing is supporting the hoarding of selleable loot. So when some uneventful iron dagger appears in the chest, you'll be able to take it to the market without making space in your pack.

I think this is one question people are missing. How the economy of the game would be designed around being able to sell everything that isn't bolted down.

Though one advantage, intentional or not, is that there will be actual strategic inventory management. This depends, however, on how many items they'll let us carry.

As for IE inventory management, I'd be more than fine if there was some window where you could AoE loot and access everyone's pack at the same time. Also un-pausing the combat when that window is up.

That's the strategic decision he wants to include there, whether to put the sword in the stash or in the pack.

I don't think so. What you describe is boring looting that means only to acquire gold.
A actual consideration would be choosing which useful/magical items, such as potions and scrolls, you'd like to be easily accessed in combat.

 

[tuluse]

With the inventory system I have the feeling they're trying to fix something ain't broken. Inventory management in the IE games was just fine. A few UI improvements and options and it's perfect. What the hell is the "top of the back" and stash? Why the need? I don't get it.

Not having the full inventory available in combat sounds good but the thing with the stash I think I don't fully understand. He means that, for example, when you loot a chest and put a sword you found there in you "stash", you then can't retrieve that sword until you go to your house or whatever?

I don't think you can put stuff in the stash unless you're in town either.

 

[evdk]

I don't think you can put stuff in the stash unless you're in town either.

You cannot get stuff from stash unless you're in town, huge difference.

 

[Lancehead]

That's the strategic decision he wants to include there, whether to put the sword in the stash or in the pack.

I don't think so. What you describe is boring looting that means only to acquire gold.
A actual consideration would be choosing which useful/magical items, such as potions and scrolls, you'd like to be easily accessed in combat.

Of course, there's nothing to decide if it's a regular old short sword; it's going in the stash. I'm just putting forth the idea behind it.

I don't think you can put stuff in the stash unless you're in town either.

I'm pretty sure you can.

 

[Hormalakh]

you can access the stash at HOME, CAMP, MERCHANT, TOWN.

I made a thread and I wanted y'alls feedback. Instead of bitching, I tried to think of a solution. God knows that Sawyer probably won't even read it, but here goes anyway.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63032-beasts-of-burden-and-stash-inventory/

So now that we've heard about invetory, I wanted to bring up the idea of beasts of burden again. I wanted to know what everyone thinks about beasts of burden being implemented (both graphically and mechanically) into the game to help with the idea of "stash"?

The way it would work is that you'd have beasts of burden "companions" on the screens that allow you to camp and anywhere else that would allow acecss to your stash. This plays several roles:

1- It informs the player that this location is one where access to the stash is allowed.
2- It helps with understanding the stash mechanic better - why you're allowed to access stash only at certain locations.
3- Beasts of burden can also be implemented as "inventory space limiters." That is you can start with a beast of burden with only limited amount of space in the stash. Then you can spend money at the market (another money dump) or at the stronghold to "upgrade" your beast of burden (BoB) to increase stash space. This further allows players to decide whether the cost in upgrading stash space is worth the advantage of being allowed to loot more junk. Make upgrades fairly expensive though (enough for several plate armors worth of gold).
EDIT:
4- They can act as visual cues for where camping is allowed, as camping is likely to be spatially limited in Project Eternity.
5- They can act as "fast travel" options for players, similar to how Fallout 2's car did so.

What do you guys think?

Btw some updates on the P:E forums.

The slashing/piercing/blunt seems reasonable. Except one thing - so the best way to assassinate a heavily armored general is to sneak behind him and ... hit him on the head with a giant hammer

?

It depends on how much damage you can do with a single strike. "Heavily armored" is not a type, but an amount of DT relative to the damage you do. Rogues' Sneak Attack damage will likely be added to their total prior to calculating reduction from DT, which would allow them to lean more heavily on slashing and piercing weapons. Also, the amount of DT that piercing weapons negate increases proportionally with other damage bonuses. As a result, as the DT range of enemies gets higher and higher, the "band" of applicability for each weapon type gets wider.

But yes, if you are facing an opponent in a stand-up fight and it has incredibly high DT, your best hope is to equip mauls, war hammers, and maces and wear them down over time. At a higher level, when your characters' bonuses and gear are upgraded, you may find that an opponent that previously suggested crushing weapons is now most vulnerable to your piercing or even slashing weapons.

It might be fun to have the Wizard character be able to refine their 'Blast' ability as their level increases. Perhaps learn to give it different elemental aspects (fire, shock, acid, shards, ice, sonic, spirit), bounce it around obstacles, add a stun or telekinetic effect, lingering effects, and so forth.

We intend to have Talents that allow you do that, if you choose. Some players may want to specialize in specific types of spells or make their general spellcasting abilities better, but other players can effectively upgrade their wizards' base implement and Blast capabilities.

E: To be clear, players who want to use their Talents to specialize in unorthodox things (e.g. a wizard who jabs people with a pike all day long) are free to do so as well.

Might I ask, what about multi-mode weapons like the halberd? Will that be slotted into one of the three types, or will it gain the most beneficial mode (among slashing, piercing, and crushing). Thank you.

I'm still thinking about the best way to handle weapons that traditionally have mixed roles in combat (e.g. polearms, military/war hammers).

 

[Infinitron]

Lancehead is correct.

 

[Kirtai]

Heh, i liked this part:

DX:HR illustrates this conflict even more clearly. The Rocket Launcher and even the Sniper Rifle are huge weapons. Carrying them around is a large strategic liability, and their usage/applicability in any given scenario is often either pointless or overkill.

Sniping enemies pointless? In my Deus Ex? Shit game appears to be shit then.

Sounds more like he's saying that carrying big, clumsy, situational weapons should be something to think carefully about rather than just stuffing them all in your hip pocket just in case you need them. It's not like sniper rifles or rocket launchers are meant for short range fighting after all.

I do have to wonder why more games don't give you penalties to things like mobility while carting around four foot+ long rifles though

 

[Delterius]

That's the strategic decision he wants to include there, whether to put the sword in the stash or in the pack.

I don't think so. What you describe is boring looting that means only to acquire gold.
A actual consideration would be choosing which useful/magical items, such as potions and scrolls, you'd like to be easily accessed in combat.

Of course, there's nothing to decide if it's a regular old short sword; it's going in the stash. I'm just putting forth the idea behind it.

Problem is that Sawyer said specifically that he doesn't want people going back and forth between town and dungeon just to sell things, the purpose of the stash isn't to support those few moments when you loot something actually interesting (which doesn't actually imply a lot of looting, much less the need of a stash), rather so you can amass those few hundreds of worthless iron daggers and sell them at the merchant for minimum profit.

What strategic consideration from inventory doesn't come from looting, its not a afterthought, and what tactical considerations we'll have from looting doesn't actually need a stash.