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

[Arkeus]

If I know the orc always hits, and does a finite, fairly consistent amount of damage, I can estimate how many shots my mage can survive right away, no risk or unpredictability left.

Yes, because knowing that the orc can kill your mage in anything between 8 and 2 hits really limit the luck factor beside saying "he will be damaged".

Seriously, don't speak about strategy when you mean tactic, and don't pretend that those are deep tactics when those are "I want to make characters that make gambles" over "I want to make characters that play smart".

If you want big flashes and big booms because you dislike thinking, i HOPE that Eternity is not for you.

 

[Infinitron]

Here there is only a small possibility that you cannot react appropriately

I don't agree that it's necessarily "small". Ever played Total War? You can't just go running around the battlefield with your units, reacting to every single thing that happens. You have a strategy you're committed to.

Now here's the problem with minimum damage and no miss - it leads to battles of attrition which last longer

I don't see how this follows.

I can estimate how many shots my mage can survive right away, no risk or unpredictability left

You lose some unpredictability, not all of it. Again, there's still the unpredictability of not knowing what the enemy will do next. "How hard will this dude hit me" is not the only randomizable element in an RPG.

 

[Zakhad]

arguments from analogy are always flawed

How rhetorically oppressive of you. Analogies have no value at all, then?

Er, no, maybe I misstated a bit. Analogies have value in that they can illustrate aspects of things that may be opaque directly but more clear when viewed through another perspective.

What I mean is that if you are saying something like such-and-such must be true about x because it is true about y and x and y are similar in such-and-such way, that argument is going to be inevitably logically flawed because no matter how similar x and y are, there are inevitable differences between them that make logical argumentation based on one inapplicable to another. It's a pretty standard logical fallacy. A common example of this is the watchmaker analogy RE: intelligent design.

Not quite. It's a logical fallacy to assume analogy proves a truth deductively, but inductive argument (that is, high likelihood rather than logical certainty, what science is based on) relies entirely on structures of analogy. To wit: tomorrow is not today or yesterday. I am forced to analogise from qualitatively different and discrete things (the set of various "days" that I have seen, which share only analogical similarity) when arguing that the continued turning of the earth each day, and the apparent rising of the sun which results, seems likely tomorrow given that it has occurred in all prior "days".

Given the limited sample space of game design (very few of all possible games have been designed thus far) analogy is the ONLY possible basis of argumentation, in most circumstances. We observe what has been done before, then attempt to iterate. Deductive logic is more or less useless in this situation. What appears as deductive logic (if game x has no-miss combat then necessarily battles will be HP attrition fests) is in fact inductive argument based on analogy: by observing past games that have happened to share these two traits, we extrapolate causation from the seeming correlation (which is also a fallacy, in deductive reasoning).

The fallacy you're thinking of is "false analogy" where you assume that object B shares all object A's qualities because it shares some of them. This is what Grunker was illustrating also. If you've seen where this has actually been used, I'd be interested to know, since I haven't observed any of it.

In short: the analogy with chess is logically sound, although it doesn't prove anything necessarily.

 

[almondblight]

Yes, but in chess, as opposed to being POSSIBLY blindsided, you are basically auto blindsided always so your moves must take into account all possible moves by the enemy. Here there is only a small possibility that you cannot react appropriately. Now here's the problem with minimum damage and no miss - it leads to battles of attrition which last longer, and are much less likely to blindside you.

Not necessarily. I remember at least a couple of times when my mage was hit in BG 2 and I lost my spell, or I went in to a battle without summons and got hit by something nasty. You could definitely do things like making retreating more dangerous and make maneuvering more important. Check out Myth if you want to see a RT game with no to-hit rolls done well.

Making an argument based on comparing a video game to chess is silly because it is an argument from analogy, and arguments from analogy are always flawed due to the simple fact that although two things may seem similar or analagous in some respects, they are still ultimately different.

It's not an analogy. The argument is that dice rolls are needed to increase the amount of strategy. To counter that, we have a game with no random elements that has more strategy than any RPG I can think of. Now maybe your argument is that it's needed in a video game, or a CRPG, or a RT CRPG, because they have certain limits. But we can at least establish that there are non-random games that require more strategy than the majority of ones that have random elements.

 

[Brotherman Bill]

Making an argument based on comparing a video game to chess is silly because it is an argument from analogy, and arguments from analogy are always flawed due to the simple fact that although two things may seem similar or analagous in some respects, they are still ultimately different.

Right. Luckily, the argument was that adding random full-misses would not always in 100% of the scenarios incline a game system, and the analogy was there to illustrate this point. Unless anyone wants to contest this claim, I think we should lay the entire meta argument about arguments to rest as they rarely lead anywhere.

 

[tuluse]

I think chess is a poor analogy here. It is a turn based game where you can only move a single piece each turn. This means the primary gameplay mechanic of chess is limiting what you can do. Whereas Project Eternity is a real time game where you control 6 pieces simultaneously. So the primary gameplay mechanic is allowing the player to do as much as possible.

This is also a reason why the MOBA comparisons suck. A MOBA definitely has missed attacks. They're based on player skill instead of dice rolls. I hope Saywer doesn't expect us to micro 6 characters as well as someone can play a MOBA character.

 

[Infinitron]

http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/411197934789476762

Can you tell us yet if enemies in Project Eternity will also have the dual stamina/health system, or will that be for PCs only? Enemies in CRPGs typically don't need "strategic resources", after all. How "symmetric" is the game's ruleset, in general?

In general, the system will be pretty symmetrical. I think some of the most interesting fights are with classed/leveled enemies, so having a symmetrical system allows designers to build enemies like "regular" characters.

 

[villain of the story]

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.

I knew PE would turn out shit the moment Kickstarter was conceived. Good job donating $10K to a retard-friendly consolized popamole piece of shit. Enjoy!

 

[roshan]

Yes, because knowing that the orc can kill your mage in anything between 8 and 2 hits really limit the luck factor beside saying "he will be damaged".

This has absolutely nothing to do with what I was writing about.

"If I know the orc always hits, and does a finite, fairly consistent amount of damage"

Seriously, don't speak about strategy when you mean tactic, and don't pretend that those are deep tactics when those are "I want to make characters that make gambles" over "I want to make characters that play smart".

If you want big flashes and big booms because you dislike thinking, i HOPE that Eternity is not for you.

Your characters don't play smart in an RPG. It is YOU that is supposed to play smart. And I want a game where I need to play smart, not where battles are "smartly" auto won for me.

It seems that Obsidian is a company that makes it a point to cater to the least common denominator. I thought that with the IE as a model, Project Eternity might be better, but it seems that is not the case. I remember the utter mind numbing retardation of the combat in NWN2 - there was this battle, I think it was against two dragons and some fire giants. At the time, my motherboard was having some issues causing extreme lag with the game. The battle just completely froze my laptop just when I had sent my party members to their targets. When it started working again, I found that everything was dead. What. The. Fuck. My party autokilled 2 dragons and a bunch of fire giants with no input from me at all. If that is the game that Obsidian wants to make, and the game that you want to play, then go ahead and have fun!

 

[Infinitron]

I knew PE would turn out shit the moment Kickstarter was conceived.

You knew PE would turn out shit on April 28, 2009? Interesting.

 

[Brotherman Bill]

Vots also predicted that the kickstarter would never reach 2mil 2.5mil 3.mil 3.5mil 4mil (he still claims that the kickstarter never reached 4m, because the KS counter doesn't count paypal)

 

[Lyric Suite]

Its easy to be right about a game being shit when everything is shit anyway trololo

My guess is that this game is going to be shit except for story/writing, with the added advantage over their other games for being isometric, courtesy of kickstarter. Not a bad deal if you ask me.

 

[Shadenuat]

I wonder if Sawyers War Against Degenerate will bite him back just because by eliminating everything random and discomforting PE will lack any surprise. Spikes in damage create spikes in player's interest in what's happening in game.

 

[Hormalakh]

I don't understand those of you who keep comparing P:E to chess. It's not going to be chess. If you want to compare P:E's combat system to anything, compare it to what Josh SAYS will be the influence, that of League of Legends.

Those of you who have played League of Legends, tell me: did you enjoy that particular type of experience? P:E is NOTHING like chess; it is more like League of Legends. Anyone advocating for it, should do so with that as their analogy. That's like me saying "P:E sucks because it's going to play like snooker." Nowhere was snooker stated to be an inspiration.

 

[Zed]

If it's like League of Legends they might as well shut down their studio now.
Luckily, I'm pretty sure it's not.

 

[tuluse]

LoL is a twichy action game. It's mechanics work well when you're controlling one character and can dodge split and maneuver with split second reactions. Hitting and missing is based on whether there is something where you targeted your attack. This sounds like hell when trying to control 6 characters.

 

[villain of the story]

Its easy to be right about a game being shit when everything is shit anyway trololo

My guess is that this game is going to be shit except for story/writing, with the added advantage over their other games for being isometric, courtesy of kickstarter. Not a bad deal if you ask me.

Empty rhetoric when something has every indicator to it being shit despite whatever hope or possibility there might be. Eg. TIM CAIN WIN WIN WIN! MCA CUMMETH BUCKET! SAWYER FUCK YEARH! BG LIKE GAME WITH PST LIKE NARRATIVE OH FUCK A MATCH MADE IN HEAVANS! Except, every other thing points to it being almost an utter irredeemable piece of shit.

"trololo" my ass.

R00FLES!

 

[villain of the story]

One interesting thing about this system is that it can eliminate those situations where you have a super high dex character that nobody can hit, and the enemy is also hard to hit, and the two end up wailing at each other fruitlessly for minutes and missing until one gets a critical hit or something.

Since you'll be constantly taking damage in combat, you'll want to push for fights to end as quickly as possible. You'll want to find a tactic to break that symmetry, instead of letting it play out and hoping you get the lucky crit. Combat becomes a shorter, more brutal affair.

That's not why the system might could but will not be interesting. Since there will be a fatigue or stamina or whatever they call it, two opponents fighting each other without hits would have to watch out for their stamina or fatigue or whatever they call it and then it would be interesting because they would have to resort to other tactics. They had such an elegant possibility and they ruined that too with their shitty fucktastic RTwP for consolized retarded piece of shits.

 

[Hormalakh]

Sawyer stated that LoL, MOBA, and these kinds of games are the inspirational source for these games. Read the formspring conversation that I had with him last night. Here are a few quotes:

As for source inspiration, 4E's dailies' miss results are a pretty good start. Also a lot of RTSs and MOBAs have moved to much more deterministic systems.

Ultimately, this conversation really isn't about whether or not there should be random elements; there are still random elements. The discussion is about how random conflict resolution should be. D&D is just one point on a spectrum. Things could certainly be much MORE chaotic than D&D. We could implement catastrophic failures/botches in the spirit of older Ars Magica or Rolemaster, but aside from the entertaining descriptions, they generally feel horrible in practice.

In fact, some MOBAs have entirely eliminated evasion-style stats. E.g. League of Legends has completely phased out Dodge. I would not say LoL has suffered because of it.

Then we had a conversation:

J: Have you played League of Legends?
H: I have not - I'm more of a old-schooler. I will play it though if you think that LoL is an inspiration for this game and make my decision based on that experience.
J: Hormalakh: There's no need for you to necessarily play it. One mechanic does not equal a game. But if someone criticizes a game mechanic and sort of hand-waves it away without playing a game that uses it, I don't think that's an in-depth criticism.
H: I have played games that use similar mechs & didn't enjoy them in the past. I will try one that you think might be enjoyable and see how it feels. Ultimately I think that as long as the choices being made are significant and meaningful I should be happy.
J: I'm not King MOBA or anything, but I did find LoL pretty enjoyable as a total package. At no point did I think, "Man, I wish there were to-hit and saves in this." If you don't like MOBAs, I don't know if LoL will make you a believer, but who knows?


So yes, obviously it's not going to be exactly like LoL. It'll probably be a mash up of LoL, DnD 4e, probably some DoTA, some old DnD 3e concepts, etc. But then chess wasn't one of the inspirations he noted. If we want to talk about misses, we need to talk about them in these limitations. Many MOBAs don't have misses. Does that make the game play differently? I think it does and I think that if that aspect of MOBAs was implemented in this game it would make that aspect less interesting to me as a player. I have played DoTA and while the whole experience wasn't bad; it wasn't one that was considered in the light of a cRPG. I think our conversation would be more fruitful if we make arguments taking into account ACTUAL inspiration instead of strawmen, both for and against this game mechanic.


Edit: unfortunately, also, there's another thing. He's seen poor implementations of RNG from XCOM:EU and has decided that because XCOM did a poor job, that RNG are no longer worthy of defence. It couldn't possibly be that the XCOM had a really poor implementation of RNG, could it? I believe that Josh doesn't realize this.

 

[Kem0sabe]

Any word on the scripting capabilities of the game engine? After the horror that was Baldurs Gate 2, and the problems i´m having with Temple of Elemental Evil at the moment, i hope they build a pretty robust system into PE.

 

[Arkeus]

This has absolutely nothing to do with what I was writing about.

"If I know the orc always hits, and does a finite, fairly consistent amount of damage"

And how do you know that? The way it's conceived, it will have a minimum of damage it could do, but the range of damage will be pretty big, as the maximum damage will be something like 5+ times the minimum damage.

snip whining

So, you don't actually have any argument whatsoever there, as you didn't say -why- you wouldn't need to play smart there, or even why you think you wouldn't.

 

[Lyric Suite]

has every indicator to it being shit

Such as?

 

[Lord Andre]

has every indicator to it being shit

Such as?

Off the top of my head:

- cooldowns
- magic stash
- every hit hits
- tank mechanic for fighters
- mages pew-pew when holding sceptre
- all classes are equally useful in combat
- eliminate RNG so that every fight is the same
- regenerating stamina acts as main health bar but they still have hp to appease the old school fags

In every other game it's decline but in PE they're features, because "there is nothing inherently wrong with a system, it's how it's implemented that matters". Some of us have passed the age of naivetee.

Edit: Grappling is out the window though because " how do you grapple a centaur derp "

 

[Lyric Suite]

Some of us have passed the age of naivetee.

Right into the age of cynicism.

 

[Lord Andre]

Some of us have passed the age of naivetee.

Right into the age of cynicism.

Correct. After which comes the age of mysticism and after that the cold void. Ignorance is bliss but what's your point ?