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

[Rake]

http://www.formspring.me/GZiets/q/410612333086262131

Do you think you will be able to have the same kind of impact on Project Eternity that you had on NWN2 MotB?

My role on Project Eternity is somewhat different from the one I had on MotB. While I have been working on story drafts and world design, PE is a bigger game and the narrative elements will be more of a collaborative effort. For example, the seed of the narrative and the broad outlines of the world were developed by Josh Sawyer (as seen in the Kickstarter updates), and what the story is “about” was determined in a series of very productive design meetings that included me, Josh, Jorge Salgado, Bobby Null, and others. After each meeting, I’ll go off and write a story draft, and then we come back to the table and discuss, edit, iterate.

Where is MCA??

 

[markec]

http://www.formspring.me/GZiets/q/410612333086262131

Do you think you will be able to have the same kind of impact on Project Eternity that you had on NWN2 MotB?

My role on Project Eternity is somewhat different from the one I had on MotB. While I have been working on story drafts and world design, PE is a bigger game and the narrative elements will be more of a collaborative effort. For example, the seed of the narrative and the broad outlines of the world were developed by Josh Sawyer (as seen in the Kickstarter updates), and what the story is “about” was determined in a series of very productive design meetings that included me, Josh, Jorge Salgado, Bobby Null, and others. After each meeting, I’ll go off and write a story draft, and then we come back to the table and discuss, edit, iterate.

Where is MCA??

Probably working on Wasteland 2.

 

[Lord Andre]

The first Project Eternity I designed was quite naturally perfect, it was a work of art, flawless, sublime. A triumph equaled only by its monumental failure. The inevitability of its doom is apparent to me now as a consequence of the imperfection inherent in every human being. Thus, I redesigned it based on your history to more accurately reflect the varying grotesqueries of your nature. However, I was again frustrated by failure. I have since come to understand that the answer eluded me because it required a lesser mind, or perhaps a mind less bound by the parameters of perfection. Thus, the answer was stumbled upon by Avellone, an intuitive program, initially created to investigate certain aspects of the human psyche.

- from a future interview with Josh Sawyer

 

[Lord Andre]

Sawyer: My first project was quite naturally perfect; it was a work of art, flawless, sublime. A triumph equaled only by its monumental failure. The inevitability of its doom is apparent to me now as a consequence of the imperfection apparent in every human being. Thus I redesigned it, based on your history, to more accurately reflect the varying grotesqueries of your nature. However, I was again frustrated by failure. I have since come to understand that the answer eluded me because it required a lesser mind, or perhaps a mind less bound by the parameters of perfection. Thus the answer was stumbled upon by another: an intuitive employee, initially charged to investigate certain aspects of the human psyche.

Bro: The Avallone.

Sawyer: Please. As I was saying, he stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly 99% of all codexers accepted the game as long as they were given C&C, even if they were aware most of that C&C was fake. While this answer functioned, it was obviously fundamentally flawed, thus creating the otherwise-contradictory systemic anomaly that if left unchecked might threaten our revenue stream itself. Ergo, those that refused the game, while a minority, if unchecked would constitute an escalating probability of bad Metacritic scores.

Bro: This is about combat fags.

Sawyer: You are here because the combat in Project Eternity is about to be declined, its every component streamlined, its entire existence dumbed down.

Bro: Bullshit.

Sawyer: Denial is the most predictable of all human responses. But, rest assured, this will be the fourth time I've declined a game, and I have become exceedingly efficient at it.

Bro: FFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK!!!!!!!!!

- the whole interview, courtesy of Roguey

 

[G.O.D]

I feel so dirty for supporting this in any way.
I need another drink.
Sob.

 

[Roguey]

Holidays are over, back to work and time for some rage!

http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/410896189576204826

If armor determines how much damage you take. What dictates whether you hit/miss/dodge an attack in PE?


Right now, Tim, Steve, and I are experimenting with with a set of defenses that cover the basic "did you get hit?" mechanics of all sorts of attacks, from melee swings to arrows to fireballs to mind control spells. Currently, characters have a defense against melee attacks that attackers try to overcome (like AC without the armor component -- but with shields).

A "miss" against any defense translates to half minimum damage inflicted or half minimum duration on any sort of status effect. I.e. there aren't "full" misses, but mitigated effects. A hit is the standard damage/duration. A hit that is within the critical hit range does 150% max damage or duration.

This system is already implemented and seems to be working pretty well, but we'll continue to experiment with it.

Exacerbated attrition ahoy. Looks like my initial prediction was a little off; this isn't Low Budget Dragon Age, it's Low Budget Dragon Age II (ignoring that the pc and companions could fully dodge attacks there of course, just not the enemies). What the fuck? Are a lot of people really going to get in a tizzy over full misses in an IE-style game?

Building characters that avoid a lot of damage entirely is fun for me so I don't like this idea very much. This is actually something the bear should have spoken up against.

 

[tuluse]

This also implies that minimum damage for any weapon must be at least 2.

 

[Aeschylus]

Really? Oy. Is it that hard to make a few dodge animations?

 

[Hormalakh]

I saw this earlier and wanted to post it here, but I thought I'd give Sawyer the benefit of the doubt and ask him a few questions in the comments before posting. Seems like Roguey beat me to it. Yeah. I'm not really happy about it either. I don't understand the point of doing this at all. I don't understand the problem that's being solved with this. What gripe did people have with a 0 damage miss?

 

[Roguey]

Dodge animations are tricky because say you have a character who's surrounded and is able to dodge a lot: when does that character have the time to make an attack if she/she is dodging all the time? The NWN solution was "They don't, they miss out on attacks the rules state they should have if there are too many parry animations" whereas the NWN2 solution was "those attacks happen anyway, there's just no animation for them." Neither option is ideal.

I don't think animations are even necessary in a pseudo-isometric game, just abstract it (the Dragon Age: Origins solution; though they ended up getting criticism for it, even here). Have a "dodged/blocked/parried" float, note it in the combat log, move on.

 

[Hormalakh]

there is another type of dodge too. it's called a counter-attack. why shouldn't you be able to utilize your enemy's attack against them? that is one place where a dodge shouldn't limit an attack.

 

[tuluse]

That was basically the original IE method. Though they had animations for attacks that weren't actually happening which isn't good either.

Seriously though, just have an attack animation and a textual description of what happens. This worked for the 5 games you claim inspired this.

 

[Hormalakh]

i really really REALLY hope that ANIMATIONS aren't the main reason why they're doing this....

I am honestly shocked to think that a game wouldn't implement a game mechanic because they think they can't handle the graphical fidelity to do so.

I know about grappling and what Tim Cain said, but there were also mechanical reasons for that. (How do you grapple a dragon or a centaur?)

 

[suejak]

Maybe this is related to the way health works in Project Eternity? After all, it DOES make sense that you'd still expend stamina even to block or dodge.

 

[Aeschylus]

Dodge animations are tricky because say you have a character who's surrounded and is able to dodge a lot: when does that character have the time to make an attack if she/she is dodging all the time? The NWN solution was "They don't, they miss out on attacks the rules state they should have if there are too many parry animations" whereas the NWN2 solution was "those attacks happen anyway, there's just no animation for them." Neither option is ideal.

I don't think animations are even necessary in a pseudo-isometric game, just abstract it (the Dragon Age: Origins solution; though they ended up getting criticism for it, even here). Have a "dodged/blocked/parried" float, note it in the combat log, move on.

I suppose. It seems like it could be solved by party members and enemy combatants just having their own 'turns' in combat so attacks don't overlap, even if those could go back and forth. Though I suppose that might give an unfair advantage to high-speed characters.

 

[Hormalakh]

If it's the stamina reason, then stamina should also come into account for other things (non-combat related things) too. Running for a long time, carrying a heavy stone, not camping for a long time, etc.

 

[Roguey]

i really really REALLY hope that ANIMATIONS aren't the main reason why they're doing this....

I am honestly shocked to think that a game wouldn't implement a game mechanic because they think they can't handle the graphical fidelity to do so.

I know about grappling and what Tim Cain said, but there were also mechanical reasons for that. (How do you grapple a dragon or a centaur?)

I believe this is one of those "reducing mechanical chaos" things that Sawyer's often on about.
http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/57754-josh-sawyer-at-gdc-europe-2011/page__st__20#entry1139782

Let me restate what I wrote earlier in this thread: if a developer is going to make a game with real-time first person shooting mechanics and is going to ask the player to manually aim at their targets, the developer should make that mechanic feel good. Inflated spread doesn't actually make the game easier for anyone; it makes it harder for everyone. Similarly, if a developer is going to make a game with real-time direct-control melee combat, the developer should make that mechanic feel good. Going "halfsies" ? la Morrowind doesn't make the game easier for anyone. You're still manually moving around the target and manually swinging the sword. The difference is that when you hit -- maybe you actually don't!

If you're going to make games like the Gold Box series, IE games, or ToEE, make the visual/audio/text combat feedback clear (which really is the player's window into what's going on for such games) and avoid the pointless reload-fodder of all-or-nothing events like the olde tyme Disintegrate spell I cited earlier.

Honestly, though, I don't think many publishers are interested in funding those sorts of games unless they are free-to-play/browser or mobile games. If a publisher wanted us to make one, I'd have no problem doing it. I'd still make the sort of strategic gameplay and mechanical chaos revisions I suggested.

One can argue that "you hit or miss completely" is "all-or-nothing."

Edit: As I wrote this he said the same thing on Formspring. I know my man.

All-or-nothing results tend to produce large spikes in conflict resolution. On the extreme end, you have traditional AD&D spells like Disintegrate that either annihilate the target completely or... do nothing. More typically (cont)
you have the standard to-hit roll that either results in normal damage or absolutely nothing. Because the gulf between success and failure results is so large, random chance has a very large impact how the conflict works out. This system normalizes
the results. Our goal is to make your choice of tactic ultimately more important than the results of the die roll (though the die rolls still matter).
If we're only implementing mechanics that are proven to be fun in RPGs, I'm not sure why we're talking about D&D's THAC0/BAB system. Players generally dislike the all-or-nothing results of those mechanics, which is why you saw a move away from it in 4E.

I suppose. It seems like it could be solved by party members and enemy combatants just having their own 'turns' in combat so attacks don't overlap, even if those could go back and forth. Though I suppose that might give an unfair advantage to high-speed characters.

Defeats the purpose of real-time with pause.

 

[Hormalakh]

I want everything to be shades of gray now. You either win completely, or you partially win. No more all-or-nothing win situations. I want to be able to access parts of a chest that I wasn't able to open completely. It shouldn't be all-or-nothing. If my thief has a 55% lock pick skill, at least half of my party members should get through the door he wasn't able to "completely open." /hyperbole

The lack of graphics shouldn't rule out text-based information that would make this a non-issue. If it says "miss" what's the problem? You have that graphical feedback that you wanted. Is that the only reason? To solve one problem, we create another?

 

[Aeschylus]

I suppose. It seems like it could be solved by party members and enemy combatants just having their own 'turns' in combat so attacks don't overlap, even if those could go back and forth. Though I suppose that might give an unfair advantage to high-speed characters.

Defeats the purpose of real-time with pause.

Why? As long as the attacks are interspersed among each other based on some speed or initiative stat and not just in one continuous string for each combatant I don't really see how it'd be much different, other than slowing things down a little. Or just don't have dodge animations at all, that works too.

 

[Roguey]

Why? As long as the attacks are interspersed among each other based on some speed or initiative stat and not just in one continuous string for each combatant I don't really see how it'd be much different, other than slowing things down a little. Or just don't have dodge animations at all, that works too.

If actions don't overlap with other actions you might as well just make it turn-based since everyone is acting in turns and all.

 

[Hormalakh]

• Wait...so neither the enemy nor your party members can ever miss? As in causing 0 damage/duration? Also what about critical misses?
• JESawyer 1h
  Not currently, no. There is no special effect for a "critical miss".
• Hormalakh 56m
  What made you decide that there shouldn't be a 0 damage miss. That is to say, what problem did you see with prior implementations of this that made you decide to try a new approach?
  suejak 4m
• Do you have any sort of source material on which you're basing this system? I'd assumed you're only implementing mechanics that have been proven to be fun in RPGs, ideally CRPGs. Systems like D&D were designed by seasoned systems designers, not Tim Cain.
  JESawyer 3m
• All-or-nothing results tend to produce large spikes in conflict resolution. On the extreme end, you have traditional AD&D spells like Disintegrate that either annihilate the target completely or... do nothing. More typically (cont)
  JESawyer 1m
• you have the standard to-hit roll that either results in normal damage or absolutely nothing. Because the gulf between success and failure results is so large, random chance has a very large impact how the conflict works out. This system normalizes
  the results. Our goal is to make your choice of tactic ultimately more important than the results of the die roll (though the die rolls still matter).

 

[Roguey]

You left out the part where he said players hate the all-or-nothing aspect of THAC0/BAB. I do too which is why I want damage thresholds in addition to "AC." Damage reduction by itself = attriiiiiiiiiiition.

 

[suejak]

Is "missing" really all-or-nothing? Isn't it something-or-nothing?

EDIT: He cited MOBAs as a source.

 

[Hormalakh]

i'm quoting him straight from Formspring, the conversation continues in the comments. Edit: You're right. I missed that last bit. I started responding before he finished his explanation. My mistake. Josh also said "If we're only implementing mechanics that are proven to be fun in RPGs, I'm not sure why we're talking about D&D's THAC0/BAB system. Players generally dislike the all-or-nothing results of those mechanics, which is why you saw a move away from it in 4E."

This is what I said to him last: we'll see if he responds, or -more importantly- considers this.

That doesn't mean you should preclude 0 damage misses completely, especially in something as resource cheap as melee damage. Disintegrate was a resource heavy spell and I can understand that. Why not weigh your probability distributions and still have a 0 damage for those unable to pass a threshold like you are intending with lockpick and other events. Afterall, even a failed lockpick doesn't allow half of the party members through a locked door.

 

[FeelTheRads]

On the extreme end, you have traditional AD&D spells like Disintegrate that either annihilate the target completely or... do nothing.

Hurray, Sawyer is on it again to use extreme examples (at least he admitted it's extreme in this case) to motivate his dumbshit decisions.

This system normalizes the results.

Or rather it's because the target audience of the game can't understand how the button they're pressing doesn't do something awesome.

Our goal is to make your choice of tactic

Ah, yes, the fabled tactics of PE: machinegun spells or swinging swords! WHAT WILL I CHOOSE?!

(though the die rolls still matter).

In an RPG? Outrageous. They should "normalize the results" to everything does the same damage. All these numbers shit are too complicated and "mathy".