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

[Excidium]

No, fuck this "encounters that just slowly wear you down" bullshit. It's just a waste of time.

 

[Jaesun]

So-called "trash" mobs with a good combat system are great, fuck the haters.

Agreed.

 

[Grunker]

So-called "trash" mobs with a good combat system are great, fuck the haters.

Agreed.

Obviously, though good, once again, is in the eye of the beholder. The point is, as long as you have fun fighting, you have fun fighting, and I don't demand that developers handcraft me sixteen million genious encounters. I'm fine with a big pile of really well-designed ones and a lot of combat besides.

Personally, I think Wizardry 8 is a good example of too much even with a great combat system, but that's mostly because the combat system is slow. The slower the combat system, the less "trash" fights.

 

[Captain Shrek]

. I'm fine with a big pile of really well-designed ones and a lot of combat besides.

No longer qualified for Moderator of GD status combat detected.

Personally, I think Wizardry 8 is a good example of too much even with a great combat system, but that's mostly because the combat system is slow. The slower the combat system, the less "trash" fights.

I think the 'slow' here is plain straight contradictory to your previous statement. It would make the entire combat section BORING after first 10 encounters, since you will be unable to progress in a story heavy game because of long combats that are not long simply because of 'slow' mechanics but because there are huge number of combat events.[/quote]

 

[Grunker]

. I'm fine with a big pile of really well-designed ones and a lot of combat besides.

No longer qualified for Moderator of GD status combat detected.

i dun get it

Personally, I think Wizardry 8 is a good example of too much even with a great combat system, but that's mostly because the combat system is slow. The slower the combat system, the less "trash" fights.

I think the 'slow' here is plain straight contradictory to your previous statement. It would make the entire combat section BORING after first 10 encounters, since you will be unable to progress in a story heavy game because of long combats that are not long simply because of 'slow' mechanics but because there are huge number of combat events.

[/quote]

Huh? How is it "contradicting"? One million mobs with a minute to kill a mob = a million minutes of doing the same (as in, killing shit with that combat system). One million mobs with 10 seconds to kill a mob = one hundred thousand minutes of doing the same.

Anyway, the point was to say that "trash" mobs can be trash (and indeed Wiz8 proves that even with a great combat system combat can get tedious).

 

[Captain Shrek]

i dun get it

Bad joke. Trash.

Anyway, the point was to say that "trash" mobs can be trash (and indeed Wiz8 proves that even with a great combat system combat can get tedious).

Misunderstood because of this:

The slower the combat system, the less "trash" fights.

 

[Grunker]

Bad joke. Trash.

doh, i get it

Other point: gotcha!

 

[Captain Shrek]

Bad joke. Trash.

doh, i get it

Other point: gotcha!

 

[Hormalakh]

I find it hilarious that some people say that combat was extremely fun in IE games and that to change it is but then also complain that combat without XP as a reward just sucks because .... combat wasn't fun and XP is the reward (not combat itself).

And don't try qualifying it with "trash mobs." Combat should be combat. If it's fun, they wouldn't be called "trash mobs."

 

[Captain Shrek]

I find it hilarious that some people say that combat was extremely fun in IE games and that to change it is but then also complain that combat without XP as a reward just sucks because .... combat wasn't fun and XP is the reward (not combat itself).

Can you point out who is saying this with the correct context?

 

[Murk]

Well, there's a difference between combat in IE in general and specific locations in IWD 2 that force you through hordes upon hordes of hook horrors that, at that point, give you no XP because of the rewards-scaling.

If you are going to force monotonous combat with 2 enemy types then at least dangle a little carrot at the end of it all. Or, ya know, give good combat encounters.

 

[Hormalakh]

" I remember playing IWD2 vanilla back in the day, but rarely finding anything of worth, it was Returning Frost Dart ad nauseam.

This idea that you get experience only for quests, and not combat, is just plain old fucking retarded. I remember slogging through hook horrors in IWD2, getting zero experience and no loot. What was the fucking point?"

"Yes, I know that, but at least a token 5XP would have been nice, so at least you get SOMETHING from the encounter. Clearing dungeons and getting more Returning Frost Darts or slogging through monsters and getting 0 XP simply wasn't fun or interesting at all. If you put the players to work, you should pay them for it. "

"What you are saying is that Roshan being forced to face trash mobs for quest completion is far better than the idea that Roshan should feel rewarded (in a Computer Game he plays to have fun) from slaying the opponents. "

He should feel rewarded because he was able to try out his combat prowess. If combat is a boring slog, that's when you want XP because you want to feel rewarded. Unless of course, XP should be rewarded because "REALISM!" Which is bs.

The argument that the combat is boring is a fine one. They need to come up with better enemies. But if the mechanics of combat feel like a chore, then fighting seems like a chore. I think this is why Sawyer is trying out new things, no?

 

[imweasel]

I am on the fence about this only quest xp mechanic. It doesn't really make much sense to me not to reward the player with xp for combat, seeing that the game should (!) be based heavily upon combat. This is not Deus Ex, where objective based xp actually makes sense.

Sawyer argues that he does not want to punish a player for not killing enemies (which I can understand), but he will still be punishing a player who prefers to sneak past many enemies, because they will be getting much less loot drops (which you sell for cash). Not to mention that removing a reward from combat is generally not a good idea imo.
I really don't think that sawyer and cain have thought this through enough... But if they have some other ideas to support objective only based xp, then they should tell us. You know, like implemeting a fucked up economy where cash is worthless junk so you don't need to collect any loot and sell it (You know, the shitty Bethesda type economy, that Skyrim fan Sawyer might love).

I find it hilarious that some people say that combat was extremely fun in IE games and that to change it is but then also complain that combat without XP as a reward just sucks because .... combat wasn't fun and XP is the reward (not combat itself).

Well then, I guess we can remove quest XP too, because the adventure and questing is the reward and not the XP you receive from doing so.

 

[Gord]

The question is, how much and what are enemies going to drop?
Many "classic" rpgs manage just fine without random drops from enemies, instead you would find the interesting stuff hand-placed in containers or on boss-type enemies.
Even a game like Skyrim has the unique weapons tied to quests or special encounters.
Relying heavily on random drops for worthwhile loot seems more like a mechanic from MMOs or games like Diablo.

Likewise, not receiving XP for combat does not have to be a problem. There are certainly games that work without, see e.g. Bloodlines, where you didn't receive XP for killing mobs, but mainly for completing quests or overcoming tasks/obstacles (I think you got XP for boss-type enemies, though) .
Even those games that do, often "scale" the combat XP to the player level.

Anyway - if gaining XP is the only motivation for combat in an rpg, then the encounter design/combat mechanics are probably shit.

 

[Infinitron]

Enemies will drop what they're carrying. They've confirmed little to no randomized loot in this game.

 

[Roguey]

So-called "trash" mobs are great, fuck the haters.

Imagine if they had cut out over half the peeps and spawns and what a better game it would be for it.

 

[Harold]

Fallout 3/New Vegas has gameplay that emphasizes survival/scrounging. The IE games don't.

Now this is just silly. No Fallout game ever released has emphasised survival/scrounging. Not a one, not even NV + hardcore + jsawyer.esp.

 

[Infinitron]

So-called "trash" mobs are great, fuck the haters.

Imagine if they had cut out over half the peeps and spawns and what a better game it would be for it.

It's pretty simple.

Trash mobs are neither good nor bad. They're one tool in the game designer's toolkit.

FILLER COMBAT is what's bad. IE, too many trash mobs used indiscriminately to pad out the game.

 

[Roguey]

Now this is just silly. No Fallout game ever released has emphasised survival/scrounging. Not a one, not even NV + hardcore + jsawyer.esp.

The presence of food/water/sleep requirements and an inventory limit that forces you to think about your loadout suggest otherwise.

 

[Infinitron]

SO.

They are a game mechanic.

No. Trash mobs are content, by definition. They are enemies that designers put in the game. How could they be anything else?

Are the kobolds in the Nashkel mines a "game mechanic"? For fuck's sake, man.

No. Trash mobs are bad too. And I believe that there is no difference called filler and trash. We use them here interchangeably. If you think that such a different can be motivated, please do so.

Of course there's a difference. Strategically placed trash mobs where they make sense is good. Half an hour of mindless hack and slash against trash mobs is filler combat.

 

[Harold]

Now this is just silly. No Fallout game ever released has emphasised survival/scrounging. Not a one, not even NV + hardcore + jsawyer.esp.

The presence of food/water/sleep requirements and an inventory limit that forces you to think about your loadout suggest otherwise.

Except food/water/sleep deprivation is never a problem, even with increased rates so that's a no-no for survival. Thinking about your loadout is a strategic choice, has nothing to do with either survival or scrounging. To me, those two terms imply very limited supplies whereas all fallouts have tons of shit lying all over the place, even NV with loot rarity mods + NV is still ridiulously easy after the first 5 levels or so regardless of the jsawyer or project nevadas you add on top of it.

But whatever, I don't care to derail this thread in this direction any longer. Here's my highly d opinion on the current topic: Trash mobs (and their lovers) can all go kill themselves so that I don't have to.

 

[Roguey]

Except food/water/sleep deprivation is never a problem, even with increased rates so that's a no-no for survival.

It usually isn't a problem. The point is that it's something else that has to be considered.

Thinking about your loadout is a strategic choice, has nothing to do with either survival or scrounging. To me, those two terms imply very limited supplies whereas all fallouts have tons of shit lying all over the place, even NV with loot rarity mods + NV is still ridiulously easy after the first 5 levels or so regardless of the jsawyer or project nevadas you add on top of it.

True 'nuff. I'm sure if Josh was making a Fallout game from scratch he'd very likely make the inventory more like P:E's. With NV he has to work with what Fallout 3 already has.

 

[Gord]

Except food/water/sleep deprivation is never a problem, even with increased rates so that's a no-no for survival.

It usually isn't a problem. The point is that it's something else that has to be considered.

Thinking about your loadout is a strategic choice, has nothing to do with either survival or scrounging. To me, those two terms imply very limited supplies whereas all fallouts have tons of shit lying all over the place, even NV with loot rarity mods + NV is still ridiulously easy after the first 5 levels or so regardless of the jsawyer or project nevadas you add on top of it.

True 'nuff. I'm sure if Josh was making a Fallout game from scratch he'd very likely make the inventory more like P:E's. With NV he has to work with what Fallout 3 already has.

Indeed, what killed any "survival" aspect of FO3 (missing food/water requirements aside) is the sheer amount of dropped weapons/ammo/armor/stims from enemies.
There is no "survival in a harsh, unforgiving wasteland" when you have plenty of equipment for every situation after 30 min of play.

This is true (although to a slightly lesser degree) for FNV, as well. All things that could be considered a necessity for "survival" are plentiful, rendering any consideration about conservation of said things moot.

 

[Kane]

Now this is just silly. No Fallout game ever released has emphasised survival/scrounging. Not a one, not even NV + hardcore + jsawyer.esp.

The presence of food/water/sleep requirements and an inventory limit that forces you to think about your loadout suggest otherwise.

Except food/water/sleep deprivation is never a problem, even with increased rates so that's a no-no for survival. Thinking about your loadout is a strategic choice, has nothing to do with either survival or scrounging. To me, those two terms imply very limited supplies whereas all fallouts have tons of shit lying all over the place, even NV with loot rarity mods + NV is still ridiulously easy after the first 5 levels or so regardless of the jsawyer or project nevadas you add on top of it.

But whatever, I don't care to derail this thread in this direction any longer. Here's my highly d opinion on the current topic: Trash mobs (and their lovers) can all go kill themselves so that I don't have to.

Yeah, it's kind of a looters dillema: In RPGs you want to find mad riches to the point that there's a whole sub-genre build around the acquisition of loot (so don't tell me loot in RPGs is unwanted). If you make loot too scarce, the game won't pop your RPG cherry. All that loot takes away from you the possibility to get that "survival" feeling into the game however. I think rogue-likes like Faster than Light are the best "survival RPGs" in this sense, but these are also very simplistic games using a staged approach for content.
In an open world "doing it like FTL" is simply not feasible. What's more, all these open worlds are ultimately too small to support true survival, you're bound to meet the next merchant sooner rather than later. This is a technical problem, obviously. You'd probably need something as large as the Eve Online galaxy to get "survival" into the game.

At the end of the day, survival is hard to do and there are no real solutions on the table. So who wants to be the first to create a codex approved survival RPG?

 

[Mrowak]

SO.

They are a game mechanic.

No. Trash mobs are content, by definition. They are enemies that designers put in the game. How could they be anything else?

Are the kobolds in the Nashkel mines a "game mechanic"? For fuck's sake, man.

No. Trash mobs are bad too. And I believe that there is no difference called filler and trash. We use them here interchangeably. If you think that such a different can be motivated, please do so.

Of course there's a difference. Strategically placed trash mobs where they make sense is good. Half an hour of mindless hack and slash against trash mobs is filler combat.

All can say Infinitron is that your definition of trash mobs does not overlap with mine. Trash mobs that are strategically placed and create some challenge as well as fun along the way are not trash mobs, at all. Merelty enemies.

Trash mobs would be putting some random monsters in some random combinations so that player wastes time doing same boring stuff time and time again in exactly the same fashion. Think of Neverwinter Nights 1 (and 2 OC, MotB and random encounters in SoZ). Shit is so fucking boring...

Now get BG2 and scaled monster types - they felt hand-placed and often created scripted encounters whereby enemy type could take full advantage of the architecture of the location and trigger multiple events (fall back and regroup! - happened once or twice). Similarly with say, Knights of the Chalice.