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

[Brotherman Bill]

I think the ability to miss can create some interesting character gimmicks for both PCs and enemies, though I suppose it's nothing that can't be replicated with sufficiently high DT in PE's system.

For example, being swarmed by a crowd of powerful ghosts or shadow type creatures, with 1 hit point and extremely high AC. The challenge being to successfully land a hit on each of them as quickly as possible.

I think it's self-evident that a system with misses has greater room for variety in class, enemy and encounter design than a system without.

This is SOOOO FUCKING CODEXIAN! Self-evident my ass! Just like I mentioned previously in this thread, you're making shit up on the spot and passing it off as truth, not even bothering with justification. But hey, I guess you have absolute truth which emanates from Schoun or something, why bother with logic like puny modernists

 

[roshan]

Dice rolls are more strategic than an averaging-out procedure or fixed and predictable results system. They represent how in warfare no plan survives contact with the enemy and the best you can do is create conditions where your lot have all the possible advantage (terrain, buffs, equipment, smartly used abilities, positioning etc) and are thus more likely to succeed. It also leads to memorable and fun moments where you manage to pull off some crazy plan or your barbarian manages to hack his toe off while swinging an axe at a rat. It forces you to think on the fly and roll with the punches, reacting to new and unpredictable circumstances as opposed to being mathematically certain of victory.

A final reason I like the use of luck and dice rolls is that it forces the player to be wary, rather than being overconfident. A fight should pretty much always be a risky undertaking what can go horribly wrong even if one guy looks like he has all the advantages. Large rolling parameters simulate this by allowing the occasional moment where the obvious underdog manages to fluke it by pure luck against someone bigger, tougher and meaner. Granted it's rare, but it keeps you on your toes.

It also makes your decisions all the more important - power attack in 3rd edition, for example, forces you to make a trade off where you can do 5 damage more, but suffer a -5 penalty to your attack. Trying for the 5 extra damage can actually mean you end up doing MUCH less damage due to missed attacks. If you are still going to to half of minimum damage when you miss, it makes the decision to use abilities like power attack a no brainer, since missing isn't such a big deal, and your missed attacks are also going to do more damage anyway.

 

[Infinitron]

since missing isn't such a big deal, and your missed attacks are also going to do more damage anyway.

Except that's conjecture. It might be a big deal, it might not be, depending on how the game's values are balanced. You are not going to take down any Firkraags with 1 hp hits.

 

[roshan]

Well, you could say that rather than having dice rolls represent (simulate) this stuff, the game should create actual unpredictable results by making the enemy AI behave unpredictably, pull out unexpected abilities and spells on you, etc.

I think Oscar's point was about the mathematical aspect of the game, not the AI. Going back to the old games for example - the +1 AB from weapon focus, could, in some situations, mean you are going to do double damage in combat. Having a system with a decent amount of randomness forces you to crunch every number there is, that is, maximizing your stats for maximum effectiveness in battle - but often at the expense of other stats - which gives strategic depth to the decisions you make when developing your character, and also to what abilities you choose to use.

 

[roshan]

since missing isn't such a big deal, and your missed attacks are also going to do more damage anyway.

Except that's conjecture. It might be a big deal, it might not be, depending on how the game's values are balanced. You are not going to take down any Firkraags with 1 hp hits.

It's not conjecture that doing 50% of minimum damage is not as big a deal as doing no damage at all. It's obvious that this is a system that poses less risk to the player. Add to this the stamina system where you don't die after losing your stamina but instead get knocked out of combat... It's obvious that this game is not catered to IE veterans at all, these newfag mechanics are meant for pathetic, emasculated modern gamers.

 

[Infinitron]

Well, you could say that rather than having dice rolls represent (simulate) this stuff, the game should create actual unpredictable results by making the enemy AI behave unpredictably, pull out unexpected abilities and spells on you, etc.

I think Oscar's point was about the mathematical aspect of the game, not the AI. Going back to the old games for example - the +1 AB from weapon focus, could, in some situations, mean you are going to do double damage in combat. Having a system with a decent amount of randomness forces you to crunch every number there is, that is, maximizing your stats for maximum effectiveness in battle - but often at the expense of other stats - which gives strategic depth to the decisions you make when developing your character, and also to what abilities you choose to use.

No, it was about what dice rolls simulate. I proposed that things like AI, abilities and, in general, more detailed content, can replace to an extent what dice rolls are simulating.

It's not conjecture that doing 50% of minimum damage is not as big a deal as doing no damage at all. It's obvious that this is a system that poses less risk to the player.

Systems don't pose risk to players. Enemies pose risk to players. Again, the quality of this kind of game really depends on the content, not the systems.

 

[Kz3r0]

Well, you could say that rather than having dice rolls represent (simulate) this stuff, the game should create actual unpredictable results by making the enemy AI behave unpredictably, pull out unexpected abilities and spells on you, etc.

Good luck with that.

 

[Mrowak]

Dice rolls are more strategic than an averaging-out procedure or fixed and predictable results system. They represent how in warfare no plan survives contact with the enemy

Well, you could say that rather than having dice rolls represent (simulate) this stuff, the game should create actual unpredictable results by making the enemy AI behave unpredictably, pull out unexpected abilities and spells on you, etc.

You are confusing two things. Dice rolls represent chance, or luck within certain singular action. The desirable effect is augmented by stats, which reflect the character's level of competence. They have little to do with actual AI which is about *what singular actions is decided to be the best in this situation".

In other words those two aspects you try to juxtapose do not oppose each other - they complement one another.

Personally I am in favour of minimalistic stat progression (because bloated stats mess up challenge and enfoce the introduction of annoying balance mechanics e.g. level-scaling) and reduced dice rolls (because when you allow too much "luck" in the game, it invalidates player's input). However, remove chance altogether and you end up with predictability, whereby no strategic decision can take place and again player's input is close to worthless. Diablo 3 is the most obvious recent example of that.

 

[Infinitron]

In other words those two aspects do not oppose each other - they complement one another.

I never claimed otherwise (and PE isn't going to be completely deterministic anyway)

But oscar said that dice rolls represent unpredictable results in combat. I said that unpredictability can be expressed in other ways as well. That is all.

 

[Lord Andre]

I think the ability to miss can create some interesting character gimmicks for both PCs and enemies, though I suppose it's nothing that can't be replicated with sufficiently high DT in PE's system.

For example, being swarmed by a crowd of powerful ghosts or shadow type creatures, with 1 hit point and extremely high AC. The challenge being to successfully land a hit on each of them as quickly as possible.

I think it's self-evident that a system with misses has greater room for variety in class, enemy and encounter design than a system without.

This is SOOOO FUCKING CODEXIAN! Self-evident my ass! Just like I mentioned previously in this thread, you're making shit up on the spot and passing it off as truth, not even bothering with justification. But hey, I guess you have absolute truth which emanates from Schoun or something, why bother with logic like puny modernists

Try processing what you read and then make up your mind if it makes sense.

Long winded explanation: The number of combinations available in a system is dependent on the number of variables in that system. Less variables - less possible combinations. That is why chess has more variety than tic-tac-toe despite both using a two dimensional matrix as a playfield. While it is true that not all combinations need to be present in the final product, limiting your options so early in production makes no sense to me.

Is it really that hard to understand that other people might have a different opinion than you ?

 

[Mrowak]

In other words those two aspects do not oppose each other - they complement one another.

I never claimed otherwise (and PE isn't going to be completely deterministic anyway)

But oscar said that dice rolls represent unpredictable results in combat. I said that unpredictability can be expressed in other ways as well. That is all.

Yeah, but what you proposed does not make up for the removal of dice-rolls. Those features were supposed to be there anyway. If anything, if they scrapped dice-rolls they would cheapen combat. Unless they have some major innovative idea, as to how they will handle singular actions.

 

[Mrowak]

I think the ability to miss can create some interesting character gimmicks for both PCs and enemies, though I suppose it's nothing that can't be replicated with sufficiently high DT in PE's system.

For example, being swarmed by a crowd of powerful ghosts or shadow type creatures, with 1 hit point and extremely high AC. The challenge being to successfully land a hit on each of them as quickly as possible.

I think it's self-evident that a system with misses has greater room for variety in class, enemy and encounter design than a system without.

This is SOOOO FUCKING CODEXIAN! Self-evident my ass! Just like I mentioned previously in this thread, you're making shit up on the spot and passing it off as truth, not even bothering with justification. But hey, I guess you have absolute truth which emanates from Schoun or something, why bother with logic like puny modernists

Try processing what you read and then make up your mind if it makes sense.

Long winded explanation: The number of combinations available in a system is dependent on the number of variables in that system. Less variables - less possible combinations. That is why chess has more variety than tic-tac-toe despite both using a two dimensional matrix as a playfield. While it is true that not all combinations need to be present in the final product, limiting your options so early in production makes no sense to me.

Is it really that hard to understand that other people might have a different opinion than you ?

But, but, but... chess do not have misses/dice-rolls. This example of yours actually illustrates that if you remove chance and focus on abilities you can still end up with quite complex system. On the flipside, how would chess play if you had to roll a to-hit chance, each time you attacked a piece? Yeah, it would be less of intellectual game, and more of a random clusterfuck.

 

[Infinitron]

Yeah, but what you proposed does not make up for the removal of dice-rolls. Those features were supposed to be there anyway. If anything, if they scrapped dice-rolls they would cheapen combat. Unless they have some major innovative idea, as to how they will handle singular actions.

Who said anything about scrapping dice rolls? This is changing the probability distribution, not removing it entirely.

Actually, D&D already does this to an extent for some things. Take a 3d6 roll. It's weighted towards the middle - you have a much smaller chance than 1/15 to get an extreme value.

 

[Lord Andre]

But, but, but... chess do not have misses/dice-rolls. This example of yours actually illustrates that if you remove chance and focus on abilities you can still end up with quite complex system. On the flipside, how would chess play if you had to roll a to-hit chance, each time you attacked a piece? Yeah, it would be less of intellectual game, and more of a random clusterfuck.

Oh Shit. I guess I was wrong.

 

[ColCol]

I don't see how you can not have missing in a game based on firearms. That would be a bit too ridiculous.

The same way you exclude missing from melee-based combat: make it about chipping away the health. "Oh your bullet didn't miss, it glanced against them and did 1 damage."

Also there are firearms and ranged weapons in Eternity.

Blaine http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=341

to link.

 

[Brotherman Bill]

I think the ability to miss can create some interesting character gimmicks for both PCs and enemies, though I suppose it's nothing that can't be replicated with sufficiently high DT in PE's system.

For example, being swarmed by a crowd of powerful ghosts or shadow type creatures, with 1 hit point and extremely high AC. The challenge being to successfully land a hit on each of them as quickly as possible.

I think it's self-evident that a system with misses has greater room for variety in class, enemy and encounter design than a system without.

This is SOOOO FUCKING CODEXIAN! Self-evident my ass! Just like I mentioned previously in this thread, you're making shit up on the spot and passing it off as truth, not even bothering with justification. But hey, I guess you have absolute truth which emanates from Schoun or something, why bother with logic like puny modernists

Try processing what you read and then make up your mind if it makes sense.

Long winded explanation: The number of combinations available in a system is dependent on the number of variables in that system. Less variables - less possible combinations. That is why chess has more variety than tic-tac-toe despite both using a two dimensional matrix as a playfield. While it is true that not all combinations need to be present in the final product, limiting your options so early in production makes no sense to me.

Is it really that hard to understand that other people might have a different opinion than you ?

I don't mind people having a different opinion than me, but i do mind people saying their opinion is "self evident" and leaving it at that.

The claim taht more variables is always better is bollocks. Your chess example does that well, as it has fewer variables than for example Battle Realms, which had some 6 different attacks and armors, with each attack doing different damage to different armors. Yet this game wasn't more complex than that of SC:BW for example, because BW was more focused and better executed overall. More variables can make a game bloated as easily as it can make it complex, and in any case there is a finite amount of variables that can realistically be catered to, no reason that "full misses" is the one true and only path to rpg righteousness.

Oh, and you don't know whether PE has "limited their options" because the system isn't revealed yet, you don't know what kind of limitations it has.

 

[Lord Andre]

I don't mind people having a different opinion than me, but i do mind people saying their opinion is "self evident" and leaving it at that.

The claim taht more variables is always better is bollocks. Your chess example does that well, as it has fewer variables than for example Battle Realms, which had some 6 different attacks and armors, with each attack doing different damage to different armors. Yet this game wasn't more complex than that of SC:BW for example, because BW was more focused and better executed overall. More variables can make a game bloated as easily as it can make it complex, and in any case there is a finite amount of variables that can realistically be catered to, no reason that "full misses" is the one true and only path to rpg righteousness.

Oh, and you don't know whether PE has "limited their options" because the system isn't revealed yet, you don't know what kind of limitations it has.

So...what you're saying is, that you're a retard with zero reading comprehension and I should ignore you in the future. Done.

 

[Roguey]

Guise you'll always be doing damage no matter how much DT an enemy has
http://forums.somethingawful.com/sh...d=17931&perpage=40&pagenumber=6#post409643599

Like F:NV's DT system, there's a minimum damage value that can get through even when armor is "fully" protecting a target.

Also I probably should have seen this no-missing earlier: http://forums.somethingawful.com/sh...=3506352&userid=17931&perpage=40&pagenumber=7

For randomized elements that come up frequently (e.g. damage), I'd rather use small ranges than large ranges. E.g. instead of a longsword doing 1-8 damage it would do 5-8 damage. Personally, I don't think we need to do any funky RNGs, just keep the ranges sane and simple.
...
What's even more interesting to me is that due to XCOM : EU seeding the RNG, what is a statistically probable and sound tactic that causes catastrophic failure becomes, on reload (assuming you can/choose to reload), the thing you don't do. It emphasizes even more that the RNG can (and does) destroy perfectly reasonable and mathematically probable tactics.
...
Well, it does force the player to choose a new tactic, but that almost always is a choice like movement or a grenade, where the results are sub-optimal but effectively "guaranteed". Since this is typically how the player's gameplay logic degenerates, I'd prefer a system in which effect efficacy simply decreases based on the same factors that normally decrease chance of success. E.g. instead of a Sniper's shot having an 80% chance of hitting, the Sniper's shot will hit, but it will do 80% of its maximum damage at that range. I know "that's not XCOM", but I mean for system designs like this in general.

Welp looks like the go-to tactic for Dullsville will be equipping everyone with never-missing-ranged-weapons-of-destruction and kiting everything to death. Don't wanna get hit you know, since the alternative is getting hit and possibly having to constantly backtrack to rest spots to get that health back. That would be quite degenerate.

 

[Brotherman Bill]

I don't mind people having a different opinion than me, but i do mind people saying their opinion is "self evident" and leaving it at that.

The claim taht more variables is always better is bollocks. Your chess example does that well, as it has fewer variables than for example Battle Realms, which had some 6 different attacks and armors, with each attack doing different damage to different armors. Yet this game wasn't more complex than that of SC:BW for example, because BW was more focused and better executed overall. More variables can make a game bloated as easily as it can make it complex, and in any case there is a finite amount of variables that can realistically be catered to, no reason that "full misses" is the one true and only path to rpg righteousness.

Oh, and you don't know whether PE has "limited their options" because the system isn't revealed yet, you don't know what kind of limitations it has.

So...what you're saying is, that you're a retard with zero reading comprehension and I should ignore you in the future. Done.

 

[Infinitron]

Welp looks like the go-to tactic for Dullsville will be equipping everyone with never-missing-ranged-weapons-of-destruction and kiting everything to death. Don't wanna get hit you know, since the alternative is getting hit and possibly having to constantly backtrack to rest spots to get that health back. That would be quite degenerate.

You sound like you're beginning to doubt, Roguey.

 

[Roguey]

I've been doubting since day one. This is just the first piece of potentially-bad news I've heard in a while. Fortunately Josh saying things like "the reality actually has to be enjoyable in the context of the game, regardless of where the idea started or what the intent was" gives me hope that he knows what he's doing, more or less.

 

[Infinitron]

I've been doubting since day one. This is just the first piece of potentially-bad news I've heard in a while. Fortunately Josh saying things like "the reality actually has to be enjoyable in the context of the game, regardless of where the idea started or what the intent was" gives me hope that he knows what he's doing, more or less.

Well, I asked him about the kiting on Formspring. That conversation has gotten pretty epic.

 

[Jasede]

Dice rolls vs always hitting are not necessarily superior to one another, even though oscar was very persuasive.

But they do make for very different challenges & games so I'm not sure how to take this. I prefer dice rolls in my RPGs and WYSIWYG in action games, as should most people.

 

[Zakhad]

I don't mind people having a different opinion than me, but i do mind people saying their opinion is "self evident" and leaving it at that.

The claim taht more variables is always better is bollocks. Your chess example does that well, as it has fewer variables than for example Battle Realms, which had some 6 different attacks and armors, with each attack doing different damage to different armors. Yet this game wasn't more complex than that of SC:BW for example, because BW was more focused and better executed overall. More variables can make a game bloated as easily as it can make it complex, and in any case there is a finite amount of variables that can realistically be catered to, no reason that "full misses" is the one true and only path to rpg righteousness.

Oh, and you don't know whether PE has "limited their options" because the system isn't revealed yet, you don't know what kind of limitations it has.

So...what you're saying is, that you're a retard with zero reading comprehension and I should ignore you in the future. Done.

He threatened to ignore me, too. I was, quite frankly, terrified.

 

[almondblight]

But, but, but... chess do not have misses/dice-rolls. This example of yours actually illustrates that if you remove chance and focus on abilities you can still end up with quite complex system. On the flipside, how would chess play if you had to roll a to-hit chance, each time you attacked a piece? Yeah, it would be less of intellectual game, and more of a random clusterfuck.

Pretty much this. Chess and Go do not have dice rolls; Mousetrap and Clue do. Considering that there is going to be an optimal move for most games, strategy and difficulty come from the skill needed to know which result is superior. A lot of the things people here like - a lot of dice rolls and lots of skills - often only serve to paper over a weak system. It's usually the case that you can figure out an optimal build an an optimal strategy before too long - look at the thread on difficult RPG's and see how most people agree that such a thing is very, very rare.

Contrast this with games like Chess and Go. You can't read a walkthrough and figure out the optimal strategy in ten minutes. Because there is a fixed number of moves possible, advanced players will know some moves that are optimal for some points in the game (which is why when you play with high level players they often use certain openings and not others), but the amount of possibilities makes it impossible for players to anticipate every situation.

The current ways most RPG's play lack depth, and the response of a lot of people is to maintain the facade so people can't see how shallow they are. That's why people hate DPS - once the player sees that five attacks doing two damage, two attacks doing five damage, and one attack doing ten damage are all the same, the illusion is broken. But we should be demanding better systems, not better illusions.