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

[suejak]

How is Arcanum less reactive than any other game of its time? I'd say it's actually more.

I didn't compare it to games of its time. I implied that it allows you to do many logical things in quests without giving any comment or reaction. Things that seem like they should change the world, don't.

 

[Hormalakh]

Hey guys?! What's up!?! I come bearing gifts for all.

From Sawyer's formspring.
http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/416305779595836059

Is weapon reach going to be a consideration in Project Eternity?

Most melee weapons will have a standard/uniform reach. Characters don't need to be right on top of each other to engage in melee, but they need to be fairly close. Some weapons, like pikes, have the advantage of being able to attack from fully behind another character.

They should consider naming the game "Age of Incline"

 

[Infinitron]

Awesome. Formations just got much more useful.

 

[Niektory]

Reach Things with Pikes

 

[Hormalakh]

Hey guys: even more incline. From the latest update in the OEI forums.

Kaldurenik
Will we see more then 1 animation for attacks? For example if you do the same attack 3 times in a row you will "continue" to swing the weapon back and forth (just to give a example). Instead of having the character "reset" after each swing.

Will we have any special death animations? Enemies melting / exploding / burning to ash?

Some of these are design-driven answers, so I'll answer a few.

We're starting out with one basic attack for each weapon type with variants as a lower priority. Making all of the weapon attacks unique/good is more important (IMO) than having variants. Also, a lot of our animation time is traditionally spent on creatures, and I think having a large bestiary is important. On Black Hound, we put a lot of effort into standard melee variations and I don't think it would have had as large of an impact as additional creatures/creature animations.

I'd like to have special death animations and that's something Dimitri, Mark, and I have discussed, but not in detail.

I especially like the last line. Special death animations! Finally! I'm going to burn my enemies to a crisp shooting fireballs up their assssssssssss.

 

[Infinitron]

Large bestiaries with diverse animations, how very un-console-like.

 

[Captain Shrek]

This is actually a great development.

 

[Hormalakh]

Now if the death animations have game mechanics too! Like burning enemies can cause them to lose loot (burned up scrolls and consumables). That would be quite interesting. Bg1/2 did this with petrify and cold-based spells and (bg1) broken weapon/armor.

 

[Koschey]

Arcanum had it as well with the Disintegrate spell. Though if it is implemented, I'd like to see it as one of the optional settings. Otherwise I don't see such abilities getting too much use.

 

[Dorateen]

Why? Shouldn't there be some risk in using powerful spell-like abilities? Having the negative consequences be an option would only diminsh the importance of the feature.

 

[Koschey]

If I risk to destroy (presumably) valuable loot like spell scrolls or similar every time I use a fire-based abilty, I'll simply refrain from using those and instead skewer the enemy with a sword, because, at least to me, the potential cost is higher than some increased damage/larger area of effect or similar. And an ability that is never used is an uninteresting mechanic.

IIRC, Obsidian already stated that they want optional settings to be individually selectable, so this seems like a prime example for such a setting. It definitely is interesting, I could also see myself using it sometimes - just not every playthrough, the same way I enjoy playing Iron Man mode from time to time, but not every single time I play through a game.

 

[Infinitron]

Yeah, I don't think Josh would be fond of abilities that destroy loot. It's too hard to balance the game around such abilities. The loot is hand-placed, not random - you're supposed to get it.

 

[Hormalakh]

A weirdly written response on formspring:
http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/416352235170066982
Q:
Would blunt damage dealing damage weapons have a weakness against light armor if they have an advantage over heavy type? Would enchanted weapons be able to bypass some damage-type weakness so as you should mix and match weapons but you can afford not to?
A:
The base damage of crushing weapons is lower than slashing weapons and has no inherent armor bypass (like piercing weapons), so they are less efficient against light and medium armor. Once armor hits a certain strength, the raw damage and armor negation values of slashing and piercing weapons can't make up for the high DT. Because crushing weapons have a higher minimum damage after DT is applied, they always maintain clear superiority in high DT situations.

An enchanted weapon will typically reinforce the basic properties of the weapon, not work around them. One thing we're trying to avoid are mathematical situations in which all obstacles can be turned into nails if your hammer is big enough. E.g., a mighty enough sword can eventually ignore the shortcomings of slashing weapons. Because piercing weapons' DT negation scales with damage bonuses and because crushing weapons' minimum DT is a multiplier of base damage, this should not generally occur.

However, the "bands" of applicability do grow as damage output rise. If everyone is doing 2x as much damage with their slashing, piercing, and crushing weapons, slashing weapons are dominant against higher DT than they are when they start out. Similarly, piercing weapons take over at a higher DT and hold that dominance for a larger band of DTs. Because there's no effective cap on DT, crushing weapons always have a place to shine assuming that some enemies will always have a DT that outstrips damage output.

 

[Murk]

Not really -- you just use simple logic. If the enemy drops loot, do not use such an ability. If the enemy is a monster that drops nothing, use such an ability.

I'm assuming Dire Boars don't drop Boots of Haste in such a game.

Seems simple enough to me and can help out in certain tedious areas where you have a powerful enemy that only gives XP, or drops mundane gear you don't care about.

 

[Hormalakh]

A thread I started on OEI's forums re: destructible loot.
http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63179-overkills-and-loot-destruction/

Allowing players to bash open containers without consequence or limitation does a great disservice to those who enjoy playing rogues. If you don't need someone to pick locks and disarm trapped containers, you've taken a huge bite out of the purpose of the class.

I'd like to be able to try and blast chests open at the expense of possible damage.

My proposition is not to make quest-items or super rare items destructible. Only consumables and non-magical weapons/armor. If repairing is implemented in the game, I wouldn't mind broken weapons/armor.

 

[Arkeus]

A weirdly written response on formspring:
http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/416352235170066982

I am liking the idea of crushing weapons having a "minimal damage" bonus, that's kinda smart.

 

[Infinitron]

A weirdly written response on formspring:
http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/416352235170066982
Q:
Would blunt damage dealing damage weapons have a weakness against light armor if they have an advantage over heavy type? Would enchanted weapons be able to bypass some damage-type weakness so as you should mix and match weapons but you can afford not to?
A:
The base damage of crushing weapons is lower than slashing weapons and has no inherent armor bypass (like piercing weapons), so they are less efficient against light and medium armor. Once armor hits a certain strength, the raw damage and armor negation values of slashing and piercing weapons can't make up for the high DT. Because crushing weapons have a higher minimum damage after DT is applied, they always maintain clear superiority in high DT situations.

An enchanted weapon will typically reinforce the basic properties of the weapon, not work around them. One thing we're trying to avoid are mathematical situations in which all obstacles can be turned into nails if your hammer is big enough. E.g., a mighty enough sword can eventually ignore the shortcomings of slashing weapons. Because piercing weapons' DT negation scales with damage bonuses and because crushing weapons' minimum DT is a multiplier of base damage, this should not generally occur.

However, the "bands" of applicability do grow as damage output rise. If everyone is doing 2x as much damage with their slashing, piercing, and crushing weapons, slashing weapons are dominant against higher DT than they are when they start out. Similarly, piercing weapons take over at a higher DT and hold that dominance for a larger band of DTs. Because there's no effective cap on DT, crushing weapons always have a place to shine assuming that some enemies will always have a DT that outstrips damage output.

What's weird about it? He's already explained his crushing/slashing/piercing DT system several times before.

 

[Hormalakh]

It's weird cuz I don't understand what he's saying. He's explained it before so I already know how it works but his words... they make NO SENSE!

Maybe I'm tired...

 

[Captain Shrek]

It's weird cuz I don't understand what he's saying. He's explained it before so I already know how it works but his words... they make NO SENSE!

Maybe I'm tired...

Weapons ALWAYS do a minimum damage. When Armour is High most weapons fail to pierce its DR/DT at their high damage but can still do a minimum damage. Blunt weapons simply have Higher minimum damage values.

It is not hard as it sounds.

 

[Hormalakh]

Weapons ALWAYS do a minimum damage. When Armour is High most weapons fail to pierce its DR/DT at their high damage but can still do a minimum damage. Blunt weapons simply have Higher minimum damage values.

It is not hard as it sounds.

Yep... it's cuz I'm tired. thanks made sense. I'm going to bed.

 

[Infinitron]

On wizard blastin' http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/416489485140779030

Doesn't the blast ability get less important once wiz characters begin to access "free" low-level damage-dealing spells? I presume it will have different advantages which low-level spells cannot offer. What would be possible implementations?

Blast scales with the weapon damage of the implement the wizard uses to generate it, so it should remain useful, damage-wise, even when lower-level spells become a less precious resource. Blast's area will also likely be of a unique (somewhat small) size that not many spells will duplicate.

 

[CappenVarra]

Blast scales with the weapon damage

Wait, is this the Diablo3 thread?

 

[Infinitron]

Blast scales with the weapon damage

Wait, is this the Diablo3 thread?

This is a reference to the wizard ability described here: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/371907

1st Level Wizard Spells - Wizards can access all 1st level wizard spells immediately. Unlike other wizard spell levels, the wizard does not need to find scrolls or grimoires to use any 1st level spells. Wizards can cast a fixed number of 1st level spells before they must rest to recover their uses. They can cast any combination of different spells up to the per-rest limit. As wizards gain levels, their 1st level spells will eventually become per-encounter resources.

Blast - When wizards use any implement (i.e. a wand, rod, or scepter), they generate a Blast on the target. The Blast does a modest amount of damage to all enemies in a Small area around the target (excluding the target).

 

[Lancehead]

I don't like the Blast to begin with, but this scaling makes sense for it to have.

 

[CappenVarra]

Ok, right. Got confused there for a moment.