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

[Aeschylus]

Not sure if trolling.

 

[Tommy Wiseau]

 

[imweasel]

I am a monk (a real one)

 

[Darth Roxor]

This reminds me of that metal monk I've seen some time ago

 

[Shannow]

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63190-a-spell-free-project-eternity/

Another reason for the request is that my superiors don't care much for computer games in general, but a computer game that forces one to use magic (which in real life, always has ties to the diabolic) they would simply not allow.

So now I have it from the horse's mouth that God is a devil.
Anyway, is this now officially the best thread ever part 4?

 

[Roguey]

Hilarious. 100 pages ago the aspiration to a completely balanced system (where everything was equally viable if in different ways) is now the aspiration to simply "less overpowered and less useless." Roguey, you on that boat?

Josh wants everything to have different strengths and weaknesses throughout the game and I think that's a good goal to have.

99% of the time what's called overpowered by people in systems is just what's strictly better than something else. Josh vowed to do away with stuff that was "strictly better."

He wants to do away with hammers so big that everything becomes a nail under them. Obviously some tactics/builds will handle certain challenges better than others. The idea is that you'll feel rewarded by the choices you're making while feeling the sting of what you don't choose. If each class has a "here's the optimal build that will cover all the bases and make you win everything with zero effort" that'll be a failure on his part.

 

[Kane]

Anyway, is this now officially the best thread ever part 4?

Wait, this isn't? I was about to post more stupid comics.

 

[Cosmo]

As usual, you type yourself red in the face against a strawman. You have misunderstood the discussion and decided that your opponents are rewriting their positions. I have no idea who your opponents were or whether this is true. I do know that Sawyer has been consistent in his position, however, and therefore you have simply misunderstood what he means by "balance".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZGv_-a8GBhY#t=560s

Yes, no real disparity between basic options, but a total freedom to combine them however you see fit as you build your character. What's not to like about that ?

 

[imweasel]

If each class has a "here's the optimal build that will cover all the bases and make you win everything with zero effort" that'll be a failure on his part.

Yeah, for combat. But what about a stealth build? You can "win" encounters with stealth by just avoiding them.

Although nobody knows how the stealth mechanic will work and where and when you can use it. It does sound interesting though.

 

[Roguey]

Yeah, for combat. But what about a stealth build? You can "win" encounters with stealth by just avoiding them.

Although nobody knows how the stealth mechanic will work and where and when you can use it. It does sound interesting though.

Stealth won't always be an option and Josh said he wants to make it more involved than just dice roll invisibility.

 

[imweasel]

Yeah, for combat. But what about a stealth build? You can "win" encounters with stealth by just avoiding them.

Although nobody knows how the stealth mechanic will work and where and when you can use it. It does sound interesting though.

Stealth won't always be an option and Josh said he wants to make it more involved than just dice roll invisibility.

Sounds ok. But it would be kind of ridiculous if stealth was an easy way to "win" many combat situations.

I'm curious on how the stealth system will work. Hopefully we get an update on that soon.

 

[Lancehead]

Something like the Prowling, but improved, from Arcanum could work.

 

[Roguey]

Sounds ok. But it would be kind of ridiculous if stealth was an easy way to "win" many combat situations.

I'm curious on how the stealth system will work. Hopefully we get an update on that soon.

Relevant:

As long as stealth gameplay is fun and comes with its own challenges I don't care.

 

[Grunker]

As usual, you type yourself red in the face against a strawman.

Funny, seeing as how you go on to accuse me of saying Sawyer wants everything to be equal, even though I put emphasis on equal but different.

Sawyer wants everything to be useful. What he says in the video is completely meaningless; "Like... I want everything to feel like a serious consideration, but not like everything is equally worthwhile." Which means precisely what I said, the goal is a system with options "less worthless and less overpowered" than other systems. Which is bullshit and useless as a definition, because it's all a question of degrees of too good and too bad, and that distinction will flow.

The bottom line is that this system, like all systems, will have a consensus generated around it on what's best and what's worst. Once players know the system, there will be stuff they will never consider taking, and there will be stuff they'll always want.

Unless you or Sawyer can point to a real and tangible difference - not just a fake one of scale - to all other RPG systems, you're not going to win me over, and certainly not by simply inventing a strawman in my post and targetting me with one of your own.

 

[Brotherman Bill]

Your concern were actually addressed some one or two pages ago:

Josh never said that the game would never ever have imbalances and that nothing would be OP. In fact he mentioned this specifically, that for those worrying about this - the game likely won't be perfectly balanced. Because perfect balance is very very hard to achieve.

That doesn't mean balance isn't a worthwhile goal. A somewhat balanced game is better than a ridiculously imbalanced game. Even if the game doesn't turn out to be balanced, this still doesn't invalidate his principles believe it or not.​

And regarding this

Unless you or Sawyer can point to a real and tangible difference - not just a fake one of scale

How on earth is scale not a real difference? The scale of trash mobs in DA:O damned it for example, the scale of imbalance in CoH ruined its early days, the scale of outdoorsman usefulness certainly condemned its use in fallout... Imagine if outdoorsman had at least 1 moderate/high impact use in every location, that would just have been a difference in scale (frequency of use) compared to how it is now but it would have been a very real improvement to the game, nothing fake about it.

 

[imweasel]

Sounds ok. But it would be kind of ridiculous if stealth was an easy way to "win" many combat situations.

I'm curious on how the stealth system will work. Hopefully we get an update on that soon.

Relevant:

As long as stealth gameplay is fun and comes with its own challenges I don't care.

Wait, what? You can always sneak around foes? That sounds strange... Now I am really curious as to what he's up to.

But more choice is always good I guess, as long as it isn't a no brainer. Diplomatic choices aren't (should not) no brainers either.

 

[Grunker]

Your concern were actually addressed some one or two pages ago:

Josh never said that the game would never ever have imbalances and that nothing would be OP. In fact he mentioned this specifically, that for those worrying about this - the game likely won't be perfectly balanced. Because perfect balance is very very hard to achieve.​

That doesn't mean balance isn't a worthwhile goal. A somewhat balanced game is better than a ridiculously imbalanced game. Even if the game doesn't turn out to be balanced, this still doesn't invalidate his principles believe it or not.​

And regarding this

Unless you or Sawyer can point to a real and tangible difference - not just a fake one of scale

How on earth is scale not a real difference? The scale of trash mobs in DA:O damned it for example, the scale of imbalance in CoH ruined its early days, the scale of outdoorsman usefulness certainly condemned its use in fallout... Imagine if outdoorsman had at least 1 moderate/high impact use in every location, that would just have been a difference in scale (frequency of use) compared to how it is now but it would have been a very real improvement to the game, nothing fake about it.

It's not a real difference because what Sawyer is basically saying then is "I want my game to be less unbalanced than other games" - something every system designer ever has said. It's not a difference in philosophy like he and Roguey makes it out to be then, it's just a statement that he claims he can achieve a goal everyone is trying to achieve (and which may be the wrong one to spend all your efforts on - see every system that has failed here).

 

[Hormalakh]

I can't think of an RPG right now, but whenever I think of "balanced" games, I think of Starcraft and Chess. There are multiple strategies and there still is no consensus on the "OP" strategy that every player can use. I think that is the goal. It has been achieved infrequently in computer games and games in general, but it's a worthwhile goal to have.

 

[Saduj]

Could you make it possible to play and win the game without employing a magic-user?

I am able to play games only occasionally and I find remembering spells and how to use them difficult from session to session (as opposed to simple slashing/stabbing weapons). Another reason for the request is that my superiors don't care much for computer games in general, but a computer game that forces one to use magic (which in real life, always has ties to the diabolic) they would simply not allow. I would get in trouble if they catch me, for sure.

This guy should play Arcanum as a tech user and forget about PE. Arcanum even circumvents magical weapons/armors/rings by pretending that it is possible to craft them using technology.

 

[suejak]

As usual, you type yourself red in the face against a strawman.

Funny, seeing as how you go on to accuse me of saying Sawyer wants everything to be equal, even though I put emphasis on equal but different.

I didn't go on to accuse you of anything except not understanding the discussion. Now you're using a strawman to defend yourself, Jesus.

Sawyer wants everything to be useful. What he says in the video is completely meaningless; "Like... I want everything to feel like a serious consideration, but not like everything is equally worthwhile." Which means precisely what I said, the goal is a system with options "less worthless and less overpowered" than other systems. Which is bullshit and useless as a definition, because it's all a question of degrees of too good and too bad, and that distinction will flow.

The bottom line is that this system, like all systems, will have a consensus generated around it on what's best and what's worst. Once players know the system, there will be stuff they will never consider taking, and there will be stuff they'll always want.

Unless you or Sawyer can point to a real and tangible difference - not just a fake one of scale - to all other RPG systems, you're not going to win me over, and certainly not by simply inventing a strawman in my post and targetting me with one of your own.

Ok, if your point is that little differences are the same as gigantic differences, then you did good making that clearer with this post.

To make Grunker's point easier to understand, it seems to be: "Even small differences in usefulness will result in 'useless' and 'useful' skills like every other game."

This is wrong, and I'm surprised you don't get it. Sawyer is trying to focus on fixing the old CRPG problem of skills that literally do almost nothing. Take Traps in Fallout 1. How are you supposed to know that the traps in Fallout are really weak? The content doesn't support tagging the Traps skill. You may go nuts on the Big Guns skill and then find out that you can't even get big guns until the end of the game (unless you metagame it). Baldur's Gate 1 doesn't care what your stats are in dialogue (no skillchecks), but Planescape: Torment and IWD2 do care. Rangers could have hated enemies of races that were barely in the game. Only way to know these things is to metagame, and then it reduces the variety of really viable characters.

Ok, that's the real problem. Now let's assume he succeeds in supporting all skills with content. Now you're claiming that even small differences in usefulness will have players calling stuff "useless". I'd say your MMO / competitive RTS mindset here isn't normal or important. Nobody really gives a shit if people who play the game intensively discover optimal builds. That is not the balance we're talking about. Everybody has already moved past that long ago, and no one cares. So there's your answer.

It's less about the system itself than the interaction of the system and the content. Nobody gives a shit if some builds are better than others.

 

[Infinitron]

Baldur's Gate 1 does in fact have charisma checks in a number of places.

 

[suejak]

Fair enough. I didn't even know that and I've played the game casually for over a decade. Meanwhile, I definitely know that wisdom and int are extremely important and well-rewarded in dialogue in Torment.

 

[Jaesun]

There is also a STR check (if you want to join the Bandits and go to their camp, and have them be all non hostile).

 

[suejak]

For that matter, how about being an evil character in BG1 or the Gold Box games? Good luck with that "build".

 

[Roguey]

Wait, what? You can always sneak around foes? That sounds strange... Now I am really curious as to what he's up to.

But more choice is always good I guess, as long as it isn't a no brainer. Diplomatic choices aren't (should not) no brainers either.

He didn't say "always" just that when it comes to maps he prefers ones where you have multiple ways of going through them.

It's not a difference in philosophy like he and Roguey makes it out to be then, it's just a statement that he claims he can achieve a goal everyone is trying to achieve (and which may be the wrong one to spend all your efforts on - see every system that has failed here).

It is different based on the second quote in my sig. Everyone else does it wrong. He's going to do it right.