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

[Infinitron]

because "there is nothing inherently wrong with a system, it's how it's implemented that matters".

But it's true. If history is any indication, at the end of the day, the Codex will fall in love with any game that has awesome writing and C&C. Fuck, you even had people here praising the likes of Witcher 2 because CEE AND CEE!!1

 

[tuluse]

The Witcher 2 is good for what it is.

I was expecting more from a kickstarted "old school" Black Isle name dropping game.

 

[Dorateen]

Wasteland 2? Shadowrun Returns? Chaos Chronicles? Age of Decadence?

inb4 sarcastic comments

You left out Grimoire!

 

[FeelTheRads]

- magic stash

What's that about?

 

[Lord Andre]

- magic stash

What's that about?

when you loot an item you can choose between putting it in your bacpack or have it magically teleported to your stash. the stash can be accessed only at rest camps/shops/in town.

 

[IronicNeurotic]

- magic stash

What's that about?

You can only directly access a limited number of items except in towns/inns/camps. As for a simple lore reason if you need one, imagine it as stuff you put deep down in your backpack and as such don't have immediatly accessible.

 

[Infinitron]

Can you imagine the butthurt of idiots when they put something they needed in the stash and have to trek back to town to get it?

 

[Hormalakh]

So I tried to articulate the problems I find when playing with the mechanic. The originial post is on the Obsidian forums, but I've copied it here. It's long and directed towards Sawyer.

Thanks Josh for taking the time to have this conversation with us. I've been thinking about this since yesterday and I finally got a chance to experience the game mechanic you are proposing in a game or two. A few things struck me and I think I'm better able to articulate my concerns.

I firstly realized that, as you had pointed out, the question here can become one of variability over random conflict resolution and how to make this interesting for the player. It seems to me (and I could be mistaken) that you believe limiting this range might be beneficial for the game in some way. For example, instead of so-called "chaotic" ranges in probability, we tone down the chaos. I considered this aspect in certain games and tried to evaluate them in the context of cRPGs and what I find to be interesting about them. I first noticed (in games like LoL, for example) that the HP bloat wasn't addressed, but that turned out to not really be the biggest issue for me.

I should firstly restate that I am speaking strictly about melee combat here. I think different systems can utilize slightly different "ranges" in probablity distributions, but what worries me the most is the lack of "chaos" when it comes to melee combat. When I considered melee combat in probability-based conflict resolution, I realized quickly that conflict resolution more immediately became less reliant on the skill of my character and more reliant on the loot/equipment I was carrying. As the variabilities for these weapons started to decrease, it became more important to find a "stronger" weapon to increase the base damage than it did to increase my character's skill with the use of the same equipment. I think this becomes mainly the biggest of the problems for me.

I also realized that I was missing the "frustration" of early level combat but at the same time, there was a more linear approach that I should be taking towards combat. If my variances fall within a certain range, my character can only approach a smaller subset of combat situations at any time. I know the average damages that I can produce at any time and the combat situations I put myself in must fall within the appropriate risk/reward scenarios. As these variance ranges of probability decrease, my options of "viable" combat scenarios decrease. Dodging enemies allows you to sometimes risk fighting enemies at a higher-level than you, even though the the risks are high. Yet the rewards for such a fight are also high.

I would thus propose that you consider increasing the "chaos" of your probability-conflict resolutions, but either tier them based on skill, or utilize thresholds. One possibility is to utilize poisson distributions and other non-normalized distributions to show character skill. What this does is allows a character to use the same long sword they got in Chapter 1 as a viable weapon, but because the skill in the character has increased, the probability ranges of the weapon has changed. This makes the character the actual weapon and the long sword the tool. I have a previous post here that tries to further explain this.

------------------------------------------------
I also have a few comments about the considerations that you have made here about XCOM and player's reaction to RNG. I will approach the RNG first. I, like you have already explained, have sometimes found it difficult to clarify concepts of probability to people who look at such problems from a different perspective than I. It thus seems to me that the problem isn't probability per se when it comes to conflict resolution, but the perspective in which it's framed for the players. I wonder if changing the terminology might help players better accept this. Changing "Chance to Hit" to "Chance to Miss" for example, would be an interesting experiment to try with your testers. See if changing how the probabilities are described to them changes the way they see the situation.

And finally about XCOM. One of the issues I have with you using XCOM as the go-to for RNG failure is because of the way that their RNG works. They used pre-seeded RNG that meant meta-gaming was part of the game with a saved seed at the start of the game. Your RNG would never change every time you reloaded. It’s basically allowing the player to know the dice rolls for the next few rolls. The probability values change completely when you have a priori knowledge of those rolls (see the Monty Hall problem for an example of this). The probability of a 6-side die rolling a 1 is 1/6. But in X-COM, meta-gaming meant that the probability of rolling a 1 is either a 0 or 100%. This was meant to fight against the degenerate game-reload, but the issue is the player mentality when it comes to risk/reward structure. Like I’ve said before, a high risk/resource action is more likely to initiate player reloading if a roll is bad (disintegrate save-or-die), but a low resource action that is being performed several tens of times is less likely to initiate player reloading for a few bad rolls. In my most recent experience with Arcanum which had quite brutal critical fails, the thought of gaming the system didn’t cross my mind because I would have to save/load so frequently as to make it frighteningly boring.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63091-josh-sawyer-on-miss-and-hit/page__st__60#entry1296156

 

[Lord Andre]

Can you imagine the butthurt of idiots when they put something they needed in the stash and have to trek back to town to get it?

When you put it that way, it's almost worth it.

 

[Hormalakh]

Some interesting responses from Josh in the Obsidian forums. (see the guy doesn't mind talking to us, the unwashed masses, afterall!) Anything in quotes is mine. Anything not in quotes is Josh. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63091-josh-sawyer-on-miss-and-hit/page__st__60#entry1296162

I first noticed (in games like LoL, for example) that the HP bloat wasn't addressed, but that turned out to not really be the biggest issue for me.

Personally, HP values seem to be the least troublesome thing as they mostly serve a pacing purpose. More than keeping HP values in IE ranges, I think it's important to keep the overall combat pacing in IE ranges. I.e., it should take roughly the same amount of time to defeat enemies and complete combat encounters in PE as in the IE games. If we're not on 6 second rounds (we aren't), attacks and actions will likely happen more often than they do at low-level D&D (more comparable to mid-level D&D to start), which suggests that starting HP values will likely be higher. From my perspective, to paraphrase the late, great Aaliyah, HP ain't nothin' but a number.

As the variabilities for these weapons started to decrease, it became more important to find a "stronger" weapon to increase the base damage than it did to increase my character's skill with the use of the same equipment. I think this becomes mainly the biggest of the problems for me.

This is understandable, but I don't believe that the system we're currently using de-emphasizes the character relative to his or her gear. You still really want to hit, not miss. Building a character around 50% min damage is not really a viable long-term strategy. You still have to roll to hit; the consequences of a miss in this system are just less punitive than in most editions of A/D&D. A character's accuracy with his or her weapons and his or her defenses still play a large role in their overall combat efficacy. Gear will contribute to that, but as previously discussed, it's a mix of character and gear, not all about the gear.

I also realized that I was missing the "frustration" of early level combat but at the same time, there was a more linear approach that I should be taking towards combat. If my variances fall within a certain range, my character can only approach a smaller subset of combat situations at any time. I know the average damages that I can produce at any time and the combat situations I put myself in must fall within the appropriate risk/reward scenarios. As these variance ranges of probability decrease, my options of "viable" combat scenarios decrease. Dodging enemies allows you to sometimes risk fighting enemies at a higher-level than you, even though the the risks are high. Yet the rewards for such a fight are also high

Yes, that is a consequence of normalizing ranges, so again this comes back to asking players the question, "How much chaos do you like?" In many cases, this is a personal preference. I have, for instance, seen people request elements like the fabled Ars Magica/Rolemaster botches and crits of old, which were wild and crazy.

I would thus propose that you consider increasing the "chaos" of your probability-conflict resolutions, but either tier them based on skill, or utilize thresholds.

The most appealing suggestion I've seen so far is to maintain the idea of "glancing" hits but have more extreme outliers for full misses. That sort of a change makes the most sense to me as a threshold pushed out from your chance to hit, i.e. if you miss your attack roll by more than 50%, that's not a glancing blow, but a full miss. If your chance to hit is extraordinarily high, your chance of "really" missing is pretty low. If a bunch of scrubs attack an enemy with high defenses, they may "actually" miss much more often, with glancing blows being common and a few full hits in the mix.

I also have a few comments about the considerations that you have made here about XCOM and player's reaction to RNG. I will approach the RNG first. I, like you have already explained, have sometimes found it difficult to clarify concepts of probability to people who look at such problems from a different perspective than I. It thus seems to me that the problem isn't probability per se when it comes to conflict resolution, but the perspective in which it's framed for the players. I wonder if changing the terminology might help players better accept this. Changing "Chance to Hit" to "Chance to Miss" for example, would be an interesting experiment to try with your testers. See if changing how the probabilities are described to them changes the way they see the situation.

That's certainly a possibility, but the first step for me is to ensure that the way the mechanics work in game produce enjoyable gameplay. Terminology tweaks can come later if we stay with a given system.

And finally about XCOM. One of the issues I have with you using XCOM as the go-to for RNG failure is because of the way that their RNG works. They used pre-seeded RNG that meant meta-gaming was part of the game with a saved seed at the start of the game. Your RNG would never change every time you reloaded. It’s basically allowing the player to know the dice rolls for the next few rolls. The probability values change completely when you have a priori knowledge of those rolls (see the Monty Hall problem for an example of this).

Yes. It's a bizarre meta-example because it's deterministic chaos. The behavior following a failure is certainly made very odd because of what they're trying to prevent, but often it's the reaction to the failure itself that is telling: many players simply don't understand how probability works. Without seeding, non-Ironman players would still reload, but they'd try the same action again instead of switching to something different.

 

[Dorateen]

Hello?? Grimoire??

I see I failed an initiative roll.

Although it seems discussing dice rolls is now inappropriate for this topic.

 

[Infinitron]

Great post, Horm. Incline of newfags ITT

 

[J_C]

I can't count the number of times I've seen players make a complaint in the vein that their XCOM units had 90% chance to hit and missed three times in a row. "Impossible!"

This is the main problem with Josh' design method. He looks at the dumbest gamers around and wants to make a system that even they can use and one that doesn't confuse them. Josh, please just ignore the fuckers who are this dumb. You will lose a few sales, but you will make a better game overall.

 

[FeelTheRads]

when you loot an item you can choose between putting it in your bacpack or have it magically teleported to your stash. the stash can be accessed only at rest camps/shops/in town.

OK, that's it. That's just too much. I guess taking stuff back by yourself was degenerate also.

You can only directly access a limited number of items except in towns/inns/camps. As for a simple lore reason if you need one, imagine it as stuff you put deep down in your backpack and as such don't have immediatly accessible.

Yeah, or you have a magic squirrel that teleports around with your stuff. Hey, this is like that thing Oblivion was about.

 

[Hormalakh]

Infinitron I would brofist if I could but alas I'm too po' to pay fo' a patron badge.

 

[J_C]

when you loot an item you can choose between putting it in your bacpack or have it magically teleported to your stash. the stash can be accessed only at rest camps/shops/in town.

OK, that's it. That's just too much. I guess taking stuff back by yourself was degenerate also.

You can only directly access a limited number of items except in towns/inns/camps. As for a simple lore reason if you need one, imagine it as stuff you put deep down in your backpack and as such don't have immediatly accessible.

Yeah, or you have a magic squirrel that teleports around with your stuff. Hey, this is like that thing Oblivion was about.

I think this is a great idea IMO. It solves the problem about using your inventory in the middle of a combat (which is unrealistic). Think about your easy-to-reach stash as quickslots you can immediately use during combat.

 

[Hormalakh]

^Yeah I think the squirrel idea is also great. Good idea FTR

 

[Tigranes]

Didn't Torchlight have a pet that would retrieve items for you or sell your loot back in town, basically a dungeon secretary?

I also remember that in FF8 lategame you picked up some sort of item that was basically a Shopkeeper-In-Your-Bag. I don't know. There's something positive about the fact that you can't sell your items all the time - it gives good pacing (you don't have to consider and evaluate and sort every single item you pick up because you don't need to decide to sell/etc until you get back to town), it adds to the excitement and relief of seeing a town, etc. I don't want every function in an RPG combined into basically a smartphone for the dungeoneering adventurer.

Ease of use never just makes life easy, it also changes your experience. E.g. some games have unlimited inventory space to solve the frustration of running out and/or having to play tetris: the result is items become dispensable, you just pick up every damn thing, you have no idea what this is or where it came from. Items lose their entertainment value as loot.

 

[Alex]

when you loot an item you can choose between putting it in your bacpack or have it magically teleported to your stash. the stash can be accessed only at rest camps/shops/in town.

OK, that's it. That's just too much. I guess taking stuff back by yourself was degenerate also.

You can only directly access a limited number of items except in towns/inns/camps. As for a simple lore reason if you need one, imagine it as stuff you put deep down in your backpack and as such don't have immediatly accessible.

Yeah, or you have a magic squirrel that teleports around with your stuff. Hey, this is like that thing Oblivion was about.

I think this is a great idea IMO. It solves the problem about using your inventory in the middle of a combat (which is unrealistic). Think about your easy-to-reach stash as quickslots you can immediately use during combat.

Better yet, think of your stash as quicksquirrels, that were trained to bring back that exactly one item you taught them about. They could even have quests in town where you present your amazing teleporting squirrels to the delight of the villagers.

 

[roshan]

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.


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.

Please read the updates that have been posted earlier in the thread and get back to me when you have a clearer picture of what is going on.

 

[Hormalakh]

I agree with you Tigranes. That's why I was shocked when I heard about this change. I knew it made the game easier to play, but I also knew I would be losing something in the process. That is a basic fact of life.

I, like you, at first thought why make your die rolls start >0? Through conversation with Josh (and some help with Roguey's awesome quotes) I realized that not only was Josh limiting the lower end of the randomization equation, he was also going to limit the upper end (so as to limit HP bloat). Hence the comment of his that,

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...
The problem is not variability, but extreme variability. This conversation is really about picking your preferred flavor of randomness. D&D is moderately random. Rolemaster, original Fallout, Ars Magica botches, etc. are extraordinarily chaotic.

After playing games with a similar mechanic, I realized that the experience that I think would be lost from RPG games (that people don't care about in non-RPGs which don't utilize dice-rolls) is the question of "should I attack this group of enemies?" i.e., linearity in combat situations. As the randomization decreases, the questions of choice and consequence become less relevant. Josh Sawyer concedes that this may be true and so the question he posed was

....Yes, that is a consequence of normalizing ranges, so again this comes back to asking players the question, "How much chaos do you like?" In many cases, this is a personal preference. I have, for instance, seen people request elements like the fabled Ars Magica/Rolemaster botches and crits of old, which were wild and crazy.

It thus seems to me that he must try to find a balance between "feeling horrible in practice" and not losing the choices given to the player in terms of which enemies he can fight (don't make the game linear).
I think this is the first actual step towards finding a proper balance.

 

[FeelTheRads]

It solves the problem about using your inventory in the middle of a combat (which is unrealistic). Think about your easy-to-reach stash as quickslots you can immediately use during combat.

The fuck are you talking about?

It doesn't solve any problem since there never was any to begin with (maybe only in Sawyer's head). Also you still use what you have in combat (WHICH OMG IS UNREALISTIC). So "think about" that, instead of making up imaginary stories in your head.
Having to go back to sell stuff meant that you had to decide whether to go back to sell all the junk you find. If you needed money you could swallow it and go. If you didn't you could just skip it. With this "system", why wouldn't I just pickup every little piece of shit of equipment and send it back?

 

[J_C]

It solves the problem about using your inventory in the middle of a combat (which is unrealistic). Think about your easy-to-reach stash as quickslots you can immediately use during combat.

The fuck are you talking about?

It doesn't solve any problem since there never was any to begin with (maybe only in Sawyer's head). Also you still use what you have in combat (WHICH OMG IS UNREALISTIC). So "think about" that, instead of making up imaginary stories in your head.
Having to go back to sell stuff meant that you had to decide whether to go back to sell all the junk you find. If you needed money you could swallow it and go. If you didn't you could just skip it. With this "system", why wouldn't I just pickup every little piece of shit of equipment and send it back?

Yes because managing that 20 inventory spaces in the IE games was so fun, when you have more stuff than 20 in the first map. You can pretend to be uber-hardcore if you want, but managing inventory spaces is not fun. Having an infinite space in your backpack is a good idea, if they balance it with the stash, so you can't reach everything in combat.

 

[Harold]

Meh.

All this arguing around every word Sawyer posts is getting tiresome. Wake me up for the inevitable 'Dragon Age III vs. Project Eternity's Actual Name - Which Is Better And Why? DISCUSS!!' thread.

 

[roshan]

- regenerating stamina acts as main health bar but they still have hp to appease the old school fags

The way I see it - Obsidian's health and stamina system is basically just autoresurrection and autoregeneration with a lot of extra words and a few numbers thrown in so that people can ignore the fact that the game they are playing has been completely dumbed down for the masses of retards.

If your lose 10% of your hp relative to 100% of your stamina, all this means is that you must be knocked out of combat (killed) 10 times before your character actually dies. The HP in Project Eternity has nothing to do with appeasing old school fags, it's a perversion of the old concept as all it does in effect is give every character 10 lives, practically unlimited autoresurrection.