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

[Roguey]

Yeah, no. You couldn't rest outside in SoZ i am pretty sure, so quite often you needed to run back to a city with half your party dead and praying that you didn't get noticed by rampaging monsters around. That was cool.

You could totally rest outside, I did it all the freaking time. Never got interrupted once. The camp routine/improved camp routine feats were kinda pointless except as more locations to tell Volo and the group trance feat was definitely pointless since it didn't even do that.

 

[Irenaeus]

Never got interrupted once.

I was interrupted several times and sometimes ended in TPK. I say it was a great improvement over OC and MotB.

 

[Infinitron]

Chris Avellone interview: http://www.rpgfrance.com/dossier-10067-1-interview-exclusive-pour-project-eternity

Can you tell a few words to our readers who are extremely excited about your game and can't help discussing it all the time?

We’re going through a lot of the lore, narrative, and story elements now – it’s a rich world, and there’s a lot to draw people in and surprise them at the same time. Also, seeing some of the material we’re setting up for the prototype... it’s exciting to see all the mechanisms going in, even for something as simple as doors (we now have the Level of Doors, which should give Sigil a run for its money – and who knows, maybe we can turn it into a dungeon).

In addition, some of the dungeon ideas that George has come up with for the rest of the world from an aesthetic standpoint are pretty creepy cool locales for people to explore. Can’t wait to see them in game and be able to share them with you guys as well.

What are the most interesting projects on Kickstarter according to you ? Do you think it could become the essential and primary platform for independant studios?

Right now, I haven’t been following Kickstarter as closely as I should – well, beyond the inXile Torment stuff or the latest RPGs that are coming to light on there. I haven’t had time to check out a lot of the projects on there unless people specifically direct me to them, and even then, I don’t always have time to check the links out even if people are looking for recommendations (to anyone who’s asked, my inbox is chock-full at the moment, and if it’s not related to Eternity, it gets moved down).

In terms of funding opportunities - either Kickstarter or Steam Greenlight can help get game ideas onto the PC, I suppose. Either way, I’m just happy these games have a chance to be made. Right now, I’ve backed/am backing a few (even Wasteland 2, which I didn’t realize I’d be working on when I first backed it) – the one I’m most excited about right now is Zojoi’s Shadowgate adventure game, which I remember enjoying way back in my old gaming days (I spent a lot of time with Shadowgate, Uninvited, and Déjà vu, and loved them all). I wish they’d do a KS for Uninvited, which I loved way back when and also scared the hell out of me.

 

[Irenaeus]

All this door discussion makes me want to bash something. Anyway, it is reassuring that MCA is excited with the world and lore, it seems that more exotic locales are being put in the game. And he seems to be pretty busy right now to follow the huge inflow of projects coming to Kickstarter. Glad that he mentioned Shadowgate which I also backed, hope that game turns out ok.

 

[Grunker]

Anyway, it is reassuring that MCA is excited with the world and lore

It is "reassuring" to you that a man with a high-ranking position in a company in charge of the writing that goes into that company's products is excited about one of the company's products?

wat

 

[Irenaeus]

 

[Jaesun]

Fuck you Grunker! This MCA! MOTHERFUCKING M C FUCKING A! If he is excited about this world and lore you also better be fucking excited about it to!

 

[Zed]

so according to the rpg france interview ( http://www.rpgfrance.com/dossier-10067-1-interview-exclusive-pour-project-eternity ), Project Eternity might become the "fixed title"

Is Project Eternity just a temporary name or is it definitive ? Why did you choose this name ? What is the importance of the ouroboros symbol in the game ?

It’s a temporary name, although if it establishes roots, it could become the fixed title. We chose it because it was reminiscent of the old Infinity Engine games, and it felt in keeping with the goals of the title. In addition, the symbol was chosen to represent the life-death-reincarnation cycle of the world.

I don't care too much about names, but "Project Eternity" is nowhere near as cool as Baldur's Gate or Icewind Dale.

EDIT:
perhaps by fixed, he means like "Forgotten Realms" or "Planescape"? Cuz that would be alright.

but for the actual game name, they should do a location name thingy, with Dyrwood, Godhammer Citadel or something else.
Project Eternity: Something of Dyrwood

 

[Infinitron]

They'll probably change it, but will find a way to keep the word "Eternity" in there somehow.

 

[Grunker]

Fuck you Grunker! This MCA! MOTHERFUCKING M C FUCKING A! If he is excited about this world and lore you also better be fucking excited about it to!

 

[Jaesun]

They'll probably change it, but will find a way to keep the word "Eternity" in there somehow.

Yeah I am pretty much expecting something like: Eternity: The Wheel of Souls etc...

 

[Jasede]

Eternity's Gate: Soulwind Dale

 

[Gozma]

I wish they wouldn't conflate "Eternity" with the one gameworld 'cause it would close the door on a Gold Box situation where they use a modular engine for multiple gameworlds

 

[Jack]

Eternal Decadence: Of Flintlocks and Magick Obscura

 

[Excidium]

Eternity is probably the name of their toolset. Like Infinity. I know the engine is unity but they have a bunch of in-house tools for RPG development.

It's too lame and generic to be a game title.

 

[DraQ]

What you're saying that a peasant PC shouldn't be able to kill a knight with pitchfork because of player's skill or metagame knowledge. I agree.

What I actually meant though is that player's actions should be required for any sort of success in melee combat. If PC knight meets enemy NPC knight, equal stats and gear, and player doesn't use his skills properly - he should lose the fight. Moreover, PC should get his ass handed to him by NPCs under his level/stats/gear if he fails to act properly. Melee combat should require constant activity from player to work. That's what I mean when I talk about a game that plays itself - you can basically select a target and go make a coffee, your job is done because all you actually need to do is to gain and distribute properly stats and acquire sufficent gear. That's passive and utterly boring. I want to be actively involved in the fight that's going on, not to stand and watch random dice rolls. Gaining stats and building a character is like preparing a meal, I do it because I want to eat it later, I don't want the game to eat it itself with me watching.

Tldr: RPG needs player's success to be dependant both on his combat activity and preparation, and failing in either should result in a general failure.

Except build is not just preparation, it's deciding how do you want to play the game beforehand.

If you make a build that excells in, say, magic, at the expense of melee prowess, then this character should be reliably murdered by pretty much every melee oriented NPC in 1-on-1, equal grounds melee, no matter what you do as a player.

I like direct control in solo games, I do think that badly commanded character of arbitrarily high level should get murdered horribly by arbitrarily low level mooks, and I certainly like preparation being a factor, but attempting gameplay not conforming to your build and character strength, should make you lose regardless of your skill.

 

[Excidium]

If you make a build that excells in, say, magic, at the expense of melee prowess, then this character should be reliably murdered by pretty much every melee oriented NPC in 1-on-1, equal grounds melee, no matter what you do as a player.

wut

 

[DraQ]

If you make a build that excells in, say, magic, at the expense of melee prowess, then this character should be reliably murdered by pretty much every melee oriented NPC in 1-on-1, equal grounds melee, no matter what you do as a player.

wut

Squishy bathrobe people die of swordtummies.

 

[Excidium]

Who said mages have to be squishy? That stereotype is often proven wrong once they learn some tricks.

 

[Shadenuat]

Squishy bathrobe people die of swordtummies.

Low on melee prowess =/= squishy. A powerful summoner relying on his monsters who does't know crap about Abjuration school and battle tactics could be squishy. Abjuration master could be hard to kill as hell, but he also could be not that good at dishing damage and break fight into a stalemate. Of course mages can be generally squishy if setting dictates so, if learning magic just requers too much, makes them physically uncapable because they do magical drugs or whatever, but from balance standpoint, rule bender/artillery/controller can be well protected yet still balanced enough to not put other classes capability into jeopardy.

(Although on personal level, I do actually prefer them low on hitpoints and restricted at how long they can protect themselves from damage. One of my favorite spells from roleplaying standpoint is Protection From Normal Weapons and alike; great to show off to dumb peasantry how amazing you are and intimidate, but if people figure out it only lasts few rounds you're screwed... love shit like that).

 

[DraQ]

Who said mages have to be squishy? That stereotype is often proven wrong once they learn some tricks.

Well, once you use tricks it's no longer even ground, no?

It also means that it's horribly easy to be caught with your pants down for a mage (even if they wear a robe).

Squishy bathrobe people die of swordtummies.

Low on melee prowess =/= squishy. A powerful summoner relying on his monsters who does't know crap about Abjuration school and battle tactics could be squishy. Abjuration master could be hard to kill as hell, but he also could be not that good at dishing damage and break fight into a stalemate. Of course mages can be generally squishy if setting dictates so, if learning magic just requers too much, makes them physically uncapable because they do magical drugs or whatever, but from balance standpoint, rule bender/artillery/controller can be well protected yet still balanced enough to not put other classes capability into jeopardy.

Yes, but mage first needs their protections up and I despise morning casting ritual (casting all your long duration protections as soon as you finish camping) very much.

Of course, I'm all for mixed class characters, but there should always be a tradeoff.

(Although on personal level, I do actually prefer them low on hitpoints and restricted at how long they can protect themselves from damage. One of my favorite spells from roleplaying standpoint is Protection From Normal Weapons and alike; great to show off to dumb peasantry how amazing you are and intimidate, but if people figure out it only lasts few rounds you're screwed... love shit like that).

 

[Delterius]

If you make a build that excells in, say, magic, at the expense of melee prowess, then this character should be reliably murdered by pretty much every melee oriented NPC in 1-on-1, equal grounds melee, no matter what you do as a player.

Is there any point in pointing that out? Of course a hybrid should die if he forgets the fact he's a hybrid.

Torment: Eternity's Gate: Soulwind Dale

Fix'd.

 

[Roguey]

Never got interrupted once.

I was interrupted several times and sometimes ended in TPK. I say it was a great improvement over OC and MotB.

Did you play it unpatched or without a stealthy person as the leader? I'm going to guess that the hide skill protection works just as well when resting as it does when you're walking.

 

[Stonewolf]

If you make a build that excells in, say, magic, at the expense of melee prowess, then this character should be reliably murdered by pretty much every melee oriented NPC in 1-on-1
vs.
I think that badly commanded character of arbitrarily high level should get murdered horribly by arbitrarily low level mooks

That's generally the biggest issue, how to balance things out so both things happen. In Warband multi there are sometimes quite hilarious situations when an armored knight meets an archer with some letter opener as the backup weapon and that archer eventually kicks knights ass because the knight player is a newbie and the archer is a seasoned melee player who just plays as a ranged.In that game you can block a swing of any weapon with any weapon of yours, so you can block a two-handed sword with wooden stick, and you can keep doing so indefinitely if you're good enough (as a player).

So the the capital issue showed here is how to balance it out: if you could crush-through the block when blocking guy has not enough strenght (archer class is weaker and slower than melee oriented) - then the knight player wins because he has a superior character even though he's in fact worse (so he doesn't get "murdered horribly by low level mooks" even though he's commanded poorly). In other words, game mechanics wins the fight for him. If we allow the archer to block the swings indefinitely and don't introduce some mechanic obstacle like crushing through to stomp him - then preparation won't actually matter, the knight will never kill the archer because archer player is far superior, or will even kill the knight if he has a weapon that can penetrate the armor (so "mage doesn't get murdered by melee oriented").

This problem obviously translates in less obvious way to single-player games because there you will never have that necessity of giving both parties equal opportunities, but it's still there. I don't think it's possible to balance out both level differences and class differences while maintaning open space to use player's skill other than just avoiding combat in certain cicrumstances (like archer fleeing from melee because he knows game mechanics won't allow him to prevail vs. dedicated fighter no matter how good player he is, but that's seriously watering down the combat and why should we bother giving archers melee weapons in the first place then) without setting player's skill cap very low so everyone playing reaches it and are on equal terms in this regard. But then again if everyone performs equally then we can just replace th whole system with just clicking your enemy to attack. Same case for level/stat cap, if it's reachable for everyone (aka not favoring grinders and nolifers) then why to bother with it in the first place, just give max to everyone at start.

In other words, when there's grindtime on the line and permanent boosts coming out of it I think it's impossible to balance out advantages from player's skill vs. character's traits. It's one way or the other.

 

[80Maxwell08]

New Update about melee.
http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63432-update-44-the-rules-of-melee-engagement/
Update by Josh Sawyer, Project Director and Lead Designer

http://youtu.be/4AYp3q_N7pw

Last week, our art director, Rob, showed you our godlike concepts and dazzled you with an in-depth technical breakdown of how we're doing animation rigging on the project. This week, we'll be talking about a different technical subject, but one that's more connected to gameplay: engagement -- specifically, melee engagement.

Melee engagement is a solution to two common problems in the Infinity Engine games: melee characters' inability to control an area and ranged characters' ability to "kite" melee characters. In the Infinity Engine games, melee characters could be quite powerful in toe-to-toe combat, but many opponents found ways to foil those characters with little difficulty. Fast characters could easily rush around a slower melee character with impunity and ranged characters could backpedal perpetually out of reach.

If you're familiar with D&D 3E/3.5/4E/Pathfinder's attack of opportunity mechanics, Project Eternity's melee engagement fills a similar role by making melee combatants "sticky". Coming near a melee combatant means being drawn into Engagement with him or her, a state that can be risky to get out of.

Here's how it works: when two opposed combatants come near each other and one of them a) has a melee weapon equipped b) is not moving and c) is not currently at his or her maximum limit of engagement targets (the standard is 1), the other character will be Engaged.

When an opponent is Engaged by an attacker, moving any significant distance away from the attacker will provoke a Disengagement Attack. A Disengagement Attack has an inherent Accuracy bonus, does significantly more damage than a standard attack, and will call a hit reaction animation while momentarily stopping the character's movement.

When it's initiated, a Disengagement Attack automatically breaks Engagement on the target, but if the target is also the attacker's current melee target, the attacker will typically be able to re-establish Engagement before the target can move farther away. In this manner, melee combatants, especially ones that have high Accuracy and damage per hit, have a solid mechanic for keeping enemies close to them -- or making the cost of escape extremely expensive.

Of course, there are other ways to end Engagement. If the attacker switches to a non-melee weapon or performs a non-melee-based action, Engagement immediately ends. If the attacker moves away from their Engagement targets, is paralyzed, knocked down, or otherwise prevented from maintaining a threat, Engagement will also immediately end. If the attacker has a limited number of Engagement targets (as most do) and switches his or her attack focus to a different character, Engagement immediately ends.

We believe that Engagement can give AI a clear "decision point" where they can evaluate the threat of their new status and choose the appropriate course of action. For player-controlled characters, it makes melee enemies more potent threats and presents players with tactical challenges to solve.

We want Engagement to be a mechanic that players and enemies can mess with using a variety of class Abilities and general Talents, so we will be experimenting with a variety of elements to that end:

• Fighters' Defender mode allows them to engage two additional targets and increases the range at which they engage targets. This gives fighters much greater capability to control the area around them.
• The limited-use Escape ability lets rogues break Engagement without provoking a Disengagement Attack. It is generally best used when the rogue's enemy is preoccupied with another target.
• Barbarians can use Wild Rush to temporarily ignore the movement stop and hit reactions from Engagement and Disengagement Attacks, respectively -- though they can still suffer massive damage while powering through.
• The wizards' Grimoire Slam allows them to attack an enemy in melee with their magically-charged grimoires, unleashing a concussive wave of energy on contact. If it hits, the attack knocks the target back, usually far enough to break Engagement in the process.

Additionally, creatures may have their own special abilities related to Engagement and Disengagement Attacks. We hope that the system itself is easy to understand but allows for increasingly complex tactical considerations over the course of the game.

That's all for this week! Let us know what you think of the mechanic on our forums. Your feedback, as always, is appreciated. In our next update, we'll be continuing our thrilling coverage of Chris Avellone's playthrough of Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura.