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

[Infinitron]

Aeschylus As Jaesun would say, It's Not Rocket Science.

 

[Arkeus]

Quote

@Josh, I'd like to reiterate from earlier in the thread that keeping the original BG-style selection circles would be my preference as well (green for party, red enemy, blue NPC, yellow for some state changes) with potential upgrades. Maybe selection circle thickness could represent relative armor level (I have no idea if that's visually doable). Just please don't make each party member's circle a different color or worse, as in BG:EE, some the same color as others; or moddable would be nice!​

Tim and I, who are both color blind, would prefer to not use green/red for allied/enemy colors.

Ahaha, that is hilarious.

 

[imweasel]

Quote

@Josh, I'd like to reiterate from earlier in the thread that keeping the original BG-style selection circles would be my preference as well (green for party, red enemy, blue NPC, yellow for some state changes) with potential upgrades. Maybe selection circle thickness could represent relative armor level (I have no idea if that's visually doable). Just please don't make each party member's circle a different color or worse, as in BG:EE, some the same color as others; or moddable would be nice!​

Tim and I, who are both color blind, would prefer to not use green/red for allied/enemy colors.

Ahaha, that is hilarious.

Dude, they should just add a color blind mode instead of changing the colors for the <98% of us that can see the whole color spectrum.

 

[Arkeus]

Dude, they should just add a color blind mode instead of changing the colors for the <98% of us that can see the whole color spectrum.

Funny thing, this is not 'changing' anything, as it's still in preproduction.

 

[imweasel]

Dude, they should just add a color blind mode instead of changing the colors for the <98% of us that can see the whole color spectrum.

Funny thing, this is not 'changing' anything, as it's still in preproduction.

Changing from what was used in the IE games..... or better: Using a color combination that is awkward for those who can see the whol color spectrum.

 

[tuluse]

They could let players pick whatever colors they want.

 

[Murk]

I did read better dude. The best programs to organize statistical data are programs you write yourself. Scripts allow best arrangement and tabulation and whatnot. Excel is for retards who can't.

Huh?

 

[suejak]

There's something about this system that just seems contrived. Like it's too clean, too "balanced". I don't know what it is. Maybe it's the symmetry.

It's a good system, though. At the end of the day, you'll still have good complicated decisions like whether a new weapon does enough damage even against non-ideal armour types to make it worth equipping over a weapon of another type.

Would also to be cool to get weapons that do multiple types of damage, like a war hammer with spikes on it.

^
I don't feel like writing anymore, so

I drew a simple example graph:

This is a simplified version of what Josh wanted (note: without MDTDT and some other bullshit. e.g. crushing also does decent damage with a low DT).
x-axis: damage threshold
y-axis: damage
f(x): slash damage (red)
g(x): crushing damage (green)
h(x): piercing damage (blue)

All you have to do is create the functions then plot them. When you are satisfied with it you code the function with c++ (very simple) and you're done.
As you can see, with a low DT slashing is the best, with a middle DT piercing is the best, and with a high DT crushing is the best (like Josh originally proposed).

With functions you can also do some nice tricks, like check how high the damage of a slashing weapon must be until it is better than an a certain piercing weapon vs. middle DT.

 

[Murk]

My guess? Carry a weapon of each type on most chars and alternate as you trial/error damage or identify the armor type based on appearance.

I think I'd be far more interested in weapons that have different properties like additional effects, range, reach, area of effect, etc. than just "has different damage calculation for defense threshold".

I guess AoD kind of went in that direction, and combat was fun. Or something. Guess I'll wait and see how this actually pans out in real gameplay instead of endless hypothetical scenarios.

 

[Roguey]

I think I'd be far more interested in weapons that have different properties like additional effects, range, reach, area of effect, etc. than just "has different damage calculation for defense threshold".

When I start designing a weapon (or anything related to player choice) that has a real-world counterpart, my first thought is not, "How can I realistically model this?" but "How can I make a player want to use this?" I try to answer that question with the reality of the weapon in mind, but if that's not helpful, I think about the fantasy of the weapon. When that's done, I try to answer the question, "Why will a player not want to use this?" Both of these questions will start out with one clear answer each. I will not start layering on additional advantages or disadvantages until I believe it is necessary to make the process of choosing more compelling. Right now, I'm at the stage where I'm adding additional advantages to weapons, one for each type. All melee weapons started out with the same range because they were not part of the advantage/disadvantage criteria. The additional advantage of the pike is that it has additional range over other weapons. It is unlikely that I will reduce the range of shorter melee weapons because those weapons already have their built-in drawback (usually a weakness against high DT).

 

[Blaine]

Tim and I, who are both color blind, would prefer to not use green/red for allied/enemy colors.

Good thing he's not a chef who's allergic to dairy and nightshades.

 

[Roguey]

Games should be designed with accessibility in mind and by that I mean like http://www.ablegamers.com/Game-News/2009-accessible-game-of-year-dragon-age-origins.html

 

[Roguey]

Sorry but I don't see NWN2 winning any awards from disabled gamers for its ease-of-use.

Also they didn't cut off anything from D&D since it's not a D&D game.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

Wow.

Just fucking wow.

We already design games for mentally retarded and now we should make considerations for the physically disabled.

Seriously? You're pissed off about that?

"Sorry, Bro. Sucks to be disabled, but letting you play games offends my sense of prestige."

 

[Lord Andre]

If you are handicapped in some way that prevents you from using a mouse and keyboard, you might as well kill yourself. Go ahead. Do it right now. You'll always be inferior. Every one knows, even if they don't say it to your face. They can't look you straight in the eye. It's too awkward. So get up and go to the window. Open it. Now take a deep breath and throw out the trash.

 

[Broseph]

Seriously? You're pissed off about that?

"Sorry, Bro. Sucks to be disabled, but letting you play games offends my sense of prestige."

The key to understanding Captain Shrek.

 

[Murk]

quote

The general wording there is fine but the only thing he actually mentions is range for pikes; a very minor distinction (albeit a babystep in the right direction). Anyway, there may be more info about this but even then until a working demo puts the pieces all together it's still mostly verbal masturbation.

Having said that, I guess I'd like to see things that varying damage to stamina/hp, attacks that cause very temporary status ailments, disable certain abilities, push characters back to break up formation, etc.

 

[Excidium]

It's not his fault he has aspergers.

 

[tuluse]

Being deaf probably improves modern CRPGs considerably, so it's really the rest of us who are disadvantaged.

 

[Tigranes]

But you'd miss out on the soulful dirge of JEREMY SOULE. (There, give me my permanent position at RPS already.)

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

Seriously? You're pissed off about that?

"Sorry, Bro. Sucks to be disabled, but letting you play games offends my sense of prestige."

I am not surprised at your sudden defense. Being a part of retarded gamers it was obvious you'd feel hurt.

Meh. Having retard strength is awesome.

The general wording there is fine but the only thing he actually mentions is range for pikes; a very minor distinction (albeit a babystep in the right direction). Anyway, there may be more info about this but even then until a working demo puts the pieces all together it's still mostly verbal masturbation.

Having said that, I guess I'd like to see things that varying damage to stamina/hp, attacks that cause very temporary status ailments, disable certain abilities, push characters back to break up formation, etc.

Definitely, this has always been an underused idea. AoD was on the right track here. Mixing a chance to very briefly stun an enemy could be a nice addition to crushing type attacks to balance out lower damage.

It would also be interesting to see some of these as passive effects for certain weapon types applied to enemies or allies within range of the weapon, like having spears disable charging or have quick weapons like rapiers reduce the attack speed of an enemy with which you are engaged (you have to be careful to not give a skilled duelist an opening). It could also be interesting if certain weapons had effects directly tied to being used as part of a formation, like having two or more guys with shields and spears in a tiny phalanx grant defensive bonuses to nearby allies against missile attacks.

 

[Hormalakh]

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63...tion-damage-vs-armor-and-a-tileset/?p=1303508

My solution to the proposed problem about Dt/Armor type. Read it and let me know what you think. I think Josh's mechanic is pretty good as long as he follows his own rules.

 

[Murk]

Definitely, this has always been an underused idea. AoD was on the right track here. Mixing a chance to very briefly stun an enemy could be a nice addition to crushing type attacks to balance out lower damage.

It would also be interesting to see some of these as passive effects for certain weapon types applied to enemies or allies within range of the weapon, like having spears disable charging or have quick weapons like rapiers reduce the attack speed of an enemy with which you are engaged (you have to be careful to not give a skilled duelist an opening). It could also be interesting if certain weapons had effects directly tied to being used as part of a formation, like having two or more guys with shields and spears in a tiny phalanx grant defensive bonuses to nearby allies against missile attacks.

Yes. Ideas similar to these are often found in strategy games -- it's strange that we don't see them in cRPGs... tho, I guess MMOs do them sometimes.

 

[suejak]

Only one of those ideas I like is the shield-phalanx one. The others are too automatic... I don't want the game to play itself for me.

 

[Visbhume]

Wow.

Just fucking wow.

We already design games for mentally retarded and now we should make considerations for the physically disabled.

A perfectly worthy goal which may even lead to innovative gameplay ideas.

http://www.roguelikeradio.com/2012/10/episode-48-designing-for-visually.html