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

[Infinitron]

On pause:
http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63123-crazy-idea-real-timeslow-mo/
In our current build, we already allow the game to either be paused or dramatically slowed. A while back, a number of people requested the "slo-mo" option because (among other reasons) some are micromanagers who wind up in a constant pause-start-pause-start-pause pattern every few seconds. The slo-mo toggle required virtually no effort on our end and seems to play reasonably well so far.

Excellent! This may help introduce a new generation of micromanaging turn-based fanatics to the RTwP paradigm.

How about making stuff not stay put for long after you leave location? How about introducing constant funds sink, like consumables, that simply makes just travelling back and forth cost you more than you get from selling rusty crap in bulk? How about making items less resaleable, both due to degradation (as was already mentioned) and lack of demand?

Designers, Y U SO DUMB?

Occam's razor? Those things you're describing would require far more tuning and effort to create, and might still end up broken, cheeseable or metagameable.

But of course, simulationist gonna simulate.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

I think this was discussed a few weeks ago as part of the stash/top of the pack brouhaha, but with an eye towards solving the OCD looter issues that crop up when every enemy drops everything they use. Merchants having limited amounts of cash was also noted as a solution.

 

[Brotherman Bill]

In real life you don't go and dump a bunch of swords on someone's front desk and get money.

Not that I've ever cared much for the realism argument, or even think it should affect gameplay, but...

In real life, you can generally find a buyer if what you have is worth something. In a medieval setting a sword is worth a significant amount, so there would be no problems finding a buyer for that. Maybe in small isolated villages yeah, but in anything resembling a city or a trader hub, dumping swords for money would indeed be realistic.

I also find it amusing how many people, VD included, pissed on Alpha Protocol for not having NPCs drop loot. Now we piss on PE for having droppable loot

 

[GueulEclator]

Sawyer on exploration
I think "the truth is somewhere in the middle" answers can be a bit hokey but, in fact, the truth is somewhere in the middle -- between BG1 and BG2, that is. BG1 had a lot of empty space and BG2 packed in the content like a can of sardines. We want exploration areas to feel like you're not tripping over quests and monsters every five feet, but there should be a rewarding amount of good content to find, even in "wilderness" areas.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/62886-playing-baldurs-gate-again-most-of-it-feels-a-bit-empty/
---
On pause:
http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63123-crazy-idea-real-timeslow-mo/
In our current build, we already allow the game to either be paused or dramatically slowed. A while back, a number of people requested the "slo-mo" option because (among other reasons) some are micromanagers who wind up in a constant pause-start-pause-start-pause pattern every few seconds. The slo-mo toggle required virtually no effort on our end and seems to play reasonably well so far.

Both of these are excellent news, especially the last one. In slow motion you get the best of both worlds, the BEST. And I don't believe it will tone down the intensity, as there is nothing like a 9th level spell in slow-mo. It's super exiting, and it leaves possibility for some decent multiplayer (the pause was what ruined the multi in old infinity titles), post-release or in an expansion, of course.

 

[DraQ]

Excellent! This may help introduce a new generation of micromanaging turn-based fanatics to the RTwP paradigm.

Slomo is a good option, and won't require pause-mashing.

Adjustable time-scaling is indeed a reasonable continuous-time alternative to TB.

Occam's razor? Those things you're describing would require far more tuning and effort to create, and might still end up broken, cheeseable or metagameable.

But of course, simulationist gonna simulate.

Simulationists take advantage of the fact that the wheel has already been invented once and there is no point to reinvent it.

-Why should heaps of treasure you've left unguarded by slaying everything that lived in a location stay put there while you trek to the nearest town and back?

-Why should everyone be so keen to buy your wagon of of dented plates, pierced mail and torn up boiled leather?

-As for the money sink, how the fuck you expect to balance system where costs are almost invariably small percentage of gains, with no flat component, or upkeep depending on gear you already have? The pool will grow to infinity, because that's what such systems do mathematically.

 

[Kirtai]

-Why should everyone be so keen to buy your wagon of of dented plates, pierced mail and torn up boiled leather?

Especially if you've already sold them three wagonloads that day.

I wonder if having sale prices of items decrease the more you sell of them would work, or if it would just have people spend ages tracking loot to only get the absolute most valuable items. After all, taking something only worth 99% of the optimal loot value would be not playing to the utmost.

 

[tuluse]

Dynamic prices would be cool.

 

[Excidium]

-Why should heaps of treasure you've left unguarded by slaying everything that lived in a location stay put there while you trek to the nearest town and back?

-Why should everyone be so keen to buy your wagon of of dented plates, pierced mail and torn up boiled leather?

Why bother putting some thought into things and taking a step forward when you can just mimic the primitive designs of twenty years ago that nostalgiafags are perfectly fine with?

 

[Captain Shrek]

The bandit has dropped a 3 months unwashed underwear worth 2 gold.

 

[Raapys]

Are we sure it wasn't the Codex that designed Dragon Age 2?

 

[Captain Shrek]

Are we sure it wasn't the Codex that designed Dragon Age 2?

Not any more.

 

[DraQ]

Why bother putting some thought into things and taking a step forward when you can just mimic the primitive designs of twenty years ago that nostalgiafags are perfectly fine with?

Then it's settled.
Kill all nostalgiafags ALONG with consoletards.

Only when the rivers run red with the mixed blood of old- and newtards can the true destiny of RPGs be restored.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

-Why should everyone be so keen to buy your wagon of of dented plates, pierced mail and torn up boiled leather?

Especially if you've already sold them three wagonloads that day.

I wonder if having sale prices of items decrease the more you sell of them would work, or if it would just have people spend ages tracking loot to only get the absolute most valuable items. After all, taking something only worth 99% of the optimal loot value would be not playing to the utmost.

The IE games did this - the sale price would drop if the merchant already had comparable items in their inventory. It was pretty crude though, so I always just ended up hoarding similar items and selling them all in one fell swoop to each merchant. Uncharted Waters New Horizons (which is awesome) did it fairly well I think, but being a merchant was a pretty prominent part of the game. IIRC Fable did it too for trade items, but unsurprisingly it was pretty annoying.

 

[imweasel]

Teh Sawyer has confirmed, no level scaling.

I think we've said this before, but the only things we're likely to scale with player level are crit-path special encounters and even then, only within a range of levels. E.g. take a boss like Sherincal in IWD2. Maybe you'll encounter her at 5th level, but it's possible you could encounter her at 8th level. If 5th-8th is the most common range, we'd scale around that, but if you encounter her sub-5th level, you'll have to deal with the difference. If you encounter her at 9th or 10th by some x-treme XP mining, it will be a little easier for you.

The reason to scale the crit path special encounters is to allow for the fact that not everyone wants to do a lot of side content. Some people want to (largely) stick to the crit path with minimal side quests.

When it comes to the optional/side content, there won't be any scaling at all. Rats in the cellar will still be rats and may explode from your mere presence and the dragon Chrysophylax will probably burn you to ashes if you mosey up to his lair at 3rd level.

source: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63017-level-scaling-and-its-misuse/page__st__160#entry1297921

 

[Rake]

Teh Sawyer has confirmed, no level scaling.

I think we've said this before, but the only things we're likely to scale with player level are crit-path special encounters and even then, only within a range of levels. E.g. take a boss like Sherincal in IWD2. Maybe you'll encounter her at 5th level, but it's possible you could encounter her at 8th level. If 5th-8th is the most common range, we'd scale around that, but if you encounter her sub-5th level, you'll have to deal with the difference. If you encounter her at 9th or 10th by some x-treme XP mining, it will be a little easier for you.

The reason to scale the crit path special encounters is to allow for the fact that not everyone wants to do a lot of side content. Some people want to (largely) stick to the crit path with minimal side quests.

When it comes to the optional/side content, there won't be any scaling at all. Rats in the cellar will still be rats and may explode from your mere presence and the dragon Chrysophylax will probably burn you to ashes if you mosey up to his lair at 3rd level.

source: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63017-level-scaling-and-its-misuse/page__st__160#entry1297921

 

[Infinitron]

That's not "no level scaling". That's Dragon Age: Origins-style limited level scaling (scaled within a set range of levels)

Personally, I have no problem with that. Others will be butthurt.

 

[Captain Shrek]

That's not "no level scaling". That's Dragon Age: Origins-style limited level scaling (scaled within a set range of levels)

Personally, I have no problem with that. Others will be butthurt.

Yep. I am butthurt alright.

 

[imweasel]

That's not "no level scaling". That's Dragon Age: Origins-style limited level scaling (scaled within a set range of levels)

Personally, I have no problem with that. Others will be butthurt.

Mmm, not really. He said only special encounters (and not entire areas), which would be similiar to what we had in BG, except that BG used encounter scaling.

 

[Blaine]

A little bit of subtle, limited and well-executed level scaling is usually fine.

Oblivion-style level scaling—in which the enemies are always exactly the same level as you, and every bandit in the world suddenly sprouts glass armor after you reach level X—that's fucking obnoxious.

 

[Lord Andre]

If I remember correctly the IE-games had level-scaling exactly like that but it was barely noticeable.

As for game economy I would go for something like this:

- Any weapon that is non-magical has 50% chance to brake on enemy death.
- Any armor that is non-magical has 80% chance to brake on enemy death.
- Buy a gem bag with unlimited carry capacity for gems.
- Buy a scroll case with unlimited carry capacity for scrolls.
- Non-magical, non-quest related items degrade to broken after 2 days of lying around on the floor.
- There is a fixed amount of gold in the world distributed among the merchants based on town size.
- Every week, traders that have more gold than they initially had, lose that gold and it is redistributed evenly among the merchants who now have less then they initially had. This simulates trade.
- Eliminate the fucking stash since it is no longer needed.

Done and done. Game inclined. It's not even that hard to code it in. A good programmer could do it in a day.

Edit: By the way, I think he meant "club" as in a "thief's blackjack", so it makes sense for it to be fast.

 

[Arkeus]

That's not "no level scaling". That's Dragon Age: Origins-style limited level scaling (scaled within a set range of levels)

Personally, I have no problem with that. Others will be butthurt.

Huh, DA:O level-scaling had wolves being able to kill level 20 characters, as well as pretty much EVERY encounters being level 3-20 scalable. It was complete level scaling.

 

[Infinitron]

That's not "no level scaling". That's Dragon Age: Origins-style limited level scaling (scaled within a set range of levels)

Personally, I have no problem with that. Others will be butthurt.

Huh, DA:O level-scaling had wolves being able to kill level 20 characters, as well as pretty much EVERY encounters being level 3-20 scalable. It was complete level scaling.

No, it didn't. Each area of DA:O was meant for a different level range. Scaling took place within those ranges, but stopped outside of it.

You got raped if you went to an area above your range. You wiped the floor in areas below your range.

Mmm, not really. He said only special encounters (and not entire areas)

Hmm, true.

 

[Raapys]

Meh, any level scaling that makes one specific type of enemy stronger or weaker, including bosses, sucks. Encounter-based level scaling( i.e. instead of meeting rats you meet wolves, or just more rats) can be okay'ish if used sparingly and sensibly.

 

[tuluse]

I thought DA:O level scaling was pretty poorly done actually. It was counter intuitive from what I expected. Like I expected werewolves to tear me a new one, but they were just average difficulty.

 

[DraQ]

Scaling unique content is ok tolerable, as long as it doesn't break hierarchy of power for all content and disallows manipulating the system to maximize rewards.