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

[Excidium]

Well, it's the same principle. But the functionality is different.

 

[Cynic]

Hmmm so when engaged, the character can't move? That's kind of interesting. So it effectively stops kiting.

The more I think about it...yeah it sounds alright actually.

Presumably there's skill checks for characters to break engagement and if they will suffer an AoO or not.

I guess you'll still get the action element of real time, but it keeps the tactical side pretty solid, you'll want to position your bros in order to play with the engagement mechanic, either avoiding it or triggering it.

Might be kind of difficult to do this in real time though, unless there is some way to sense the engagement range of the opponents...maybe a skill or something.

Either way it's interesting.

 

[Frusciante]

Hmmm so when engaged, the character can't move? That's kind of interesting. So it effectively stops kiting.

The more I think about it...yeah it sounds alright actually.

Presumably there's skill checks for characters to break engagement and if they will suffer an AoO or not.

I guess you'll still get the action element of real time, but it keeps the tactical side pretty solid, you'll want to position your bros in order to play with the engagement mechanic, either avoiding it or triggering it.

Might be kind of difficult to do this in real time though, unless there is some way to sense the engagement range of the opponents...maybe a skill or something.

Either way it's interesting.

I think you CAN move. Its just that moving will trigger an attack that stops you. But moving also breaks engagement and thus allows someone to get away after the disengagement attack.

 

[Cynic]

I think you CAN move. Its just that moving will trigger an attack that stops you. But moving also breaks engagement and thus allows someone to get away after the disengagement attack.

Right, yeah that's also how I understood it. I like it quite a bit on paper. Can't wait to see a combat demo, any word on when there might be one?

 

[GarfunkeL]

Not for quite some time now. Remember that they only just released a little demo video of a part of a single level. We won't see a gameplay-video like WL2 just showed for months.

 

[Cynic]

Fucking hell I hate the waiting game and I don't even have hungry hungry hippos!!!!

 

[Curious_Tongue]

 

[Roguey]

Has anyone ever made an isometric RtwP cRPG without miss chance or a THAC0 system? Warhammer tabletop would more or less fit iirc, except for not being a cRPG. Skyrim at max cam distance?

That's too specific. All melee attacks in Expeditions: Conquistador hit, though it's turn-based. Reliable authorities claim it's quite tactical and challenging.

 

[Cynic]

FFXII was essentially RTwP and you basically never missed unless the enemy had insane stats or something special was needed to kill it. Missing in FF games is generally pretty rare.

 

[imweasel]

I think you will miss it, Project Eternity is looking to be weak tea so far. Some things they've said about how they're implementing magic and damage made me shake my head a little...

Yeah, pretty much.

Fergie is giving Sawyer a chance to try and make the mechanics himself. Sawyer will of course fail miserably, but that doesn't mean it can't be fixed by some true bros before the game is released.

Sawyer wants there to be INEFFICIENT ways of doing things, but not to have enemies outright immune so that you -need- a acid spell to finish those trolls.

So, are the fire elementals not immune to fire in PE?

 

[Roguey]

So, are the fire elementals not immune to fire in PE?

http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/418437913374644691

Isn't the new damage/armor system a "rock-paper-scissors" type thing? I thought you didn't like those.

No, because only one tactic is demonstrably inferior. In rock-paper-scissors, all tactics but one are inferior.

If you fight a fire giant in A/D&D, using fire is usually not a valid tactic. You don't have to use cold to beat one. You just can't use fire.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63091-josh-sawyer-on-miss-and-hit/?view=findpost&p=1301432

One of the keys to designing good tactical encounters is to occasionally diminish a certain tactic so the player has to seek other approaches. If we allow you to build a big enough hammer that everything can be treated like a nail, that tactical element becomes irrelevant.

That said, our approach is not to say, "This is the tactic you must use now." as much as, "This is a bad tactic to use now." We believe the latter opens up more possibilities for the player than the former.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63...-armor-and-a-tileset/?view=findpost&p=1306455

There will absolutely be circumstances where using a certain weapon, weapon type, spell, spell type against a specific enemy will be a tactically inferior choice, just as there is in A/D&D. The reason you have a party and the ability to switch weapons, spells, abilities, etc. is to allow you to adapt to the tactical requirements of different battles.

 

[Lord Andre]

Every time I read those quotes I feel like raging.

Sawyer's philosphy on good combat appears to be: "I will give you 3 choices. The first is bad and you lose A and B. The second wins but you lose A. The third wins but you lose B." So in the end, I have to choose whether I want to lose A or B. Choices that matter are good, but they don't leave much room for creating thinking.

My own philosophy would be: First let's make the setting and define the fantasy rules by which this world operates. Than implement those rules into the game as thorough as possible. At this point, the player has a lot of tools (pieces) that he has to combine together in order to produce solutions to challenges that I throw at him.
My job is not to SCRIPT solutions for the player to choose, my job is to SCRIPT the world as organic as possible so that he finds his own solutions.

 

[Sensuki]

Not for quite some time now. Remember that they only just released a little demo video of a part of a single level. We won't see a gameplay-video like WL2 just showed for months.

June, I imagine.

 

[Cynic]

June, I imagine.

That's not too bad...

 

[Raapys]

Meh, I've never been a fan of the whole 'ultra-balanced' combat stuff. I prefer when it's fun. Sometimes it's fun to win a close and balanced match fairly, true, but many times it's much more fun to find a cheap way of winning the fight easily. It allows for rewarding and creative problem-solving.

If I am to kill a guy, I don't call him out and wait until he can equip a weapon and meet me in a fair fight. I lure him into a trap, take a shot at him from afar, or stab him when he's not expecting it. Balance never enters into it. Like firing off 5 skull traps in BG2, then aggroing a bunch of idiots and having them run straight into them and dying instantly. It's cheap and it's decidedly not balanced, but it's fun. This way you can also add encounters that the player *can't* win while fighting fairly, and so force him to think creatively.

 

[Jaesun]

Evil Avatar ‏@EvilAvatarNews13m
Warner Bros. Registers Mad Max Game Domains http://ow.ly/2w9uMT

Could this be that Warner Bro Game Obsidian was in talks with them?

 

[Infinitron]

Evil Avatar ‏@EvilAvatarNews13m
Warner Bros. Registers Mad Max Game Domains http://ow.ly/2w9uMT

Could this be that Warner Bro Game Obsidian was in talks with them?

WRONG THREAD, reported to...oh wait.

 

[Duraframe300]

Evil Avatar ‏@EvilAvatarNews13m
Warner Bros. Registers Mad Max Game Domains http://ow.ly/2w9uMT

Could this be that Warner Bro Game Obsidian was in talks with them?

As evilavatar says Avalanche Studios is rumored to be doing a Mad Max game.

 

[Jaesun]

Ahh OK.

 

[J_C]

I think you will miss it, Project Eternity is looking to be weak tea so far. Some things they've said about how they're implementing magic and damage made me shake my head a little...

Yeah, pretty much.

Fergie is giving Sawyer a chance to try and make the mechanics himself. Sawyer will of course fail miserably, but that doesn't mean it can't be fixed by some true bros before the game is released.

Sawyer wants there to be INEFFICIENT ways of doing things, but not to have enemies outright immune so that you -need- a acid spell to finish those trolls.

So, are the fire elementals not immune to fire in PE?

Lilura

Joined:
Feb 13, 2013
Posts:
168

imweasel Educated


Joined:
Jan 7, 2013
Posts:
215

Anyone need more proof about 2013 newfags being retards?

 

[Lord Andre]

Anyone need more proof about 2013 newfags being retards?

Fuck off and die. And take Jaesun with you.

Edit: I mean - can you be more specific ? I need specifics.

 

[Gelbvieh]

Every time I read those quotes I feel like raging.

Sawyer's philosphy on good combat appears to be: "I will give you 3 choices. The first is bad and you lose A and B. The second wins but you lose A. The third wins but you lose B." So in the end, I have to choose whether I want to lose A or B. Choices that matter are good, but they don't leave much room for creating thinking.

How did you manage to extract that from those quotes?

Edit: specifically?

 

[Lord Andre]

Every time I read those quotes I feel like raging.

Sawyer's philosphy on good combat appears to be: "I will give you 3 choices. The first is bad and you lose A and B. The second wins but you lose A. The third wins but you lose B." So in the end, I have to choose whether I want to lose A or B. Choices that matter are good, but they don't leave much room for creating thinking.

How did you manage to extract that from those quotes?

Edit: specifically?

Specifically ? Well...specifically my mind instantaneously corroborated the info with some other older quotes of Sawyer which led specifically to my conclusion.

But specifically Roguey could fill us in and specifically disprove of my assertion. Specifically.

 

[Osvir]

Meh, I've never been a fan of the whole 'ultra-balanced' combat stuff. I prefer when it's fun. Sometimes it's fun to win a close and balanced match fairly, true, but many times it's much more fun to find a cheap way of winning the fight easily. It allows for rewarding and creative problem-solving.

Completely agree. Depends on who you are fighting though. Finding a cheap way to win against that boss who is intended to be a challenge, I don't know. Maybe on a second playthrough when more understanding and Player skill is accounted for (Demon Souls & Dark Souls, Players become better the more they play, "muscle" memory).

It can be super fun to win against that enemy that just feels intimidating and is intimidating, and you're on your knees, the dice rolls in the logs say "You missed" and "Enemy missed", you have a feeling that there's just 1 more hit that you need to get and if the enemy hits you you are dead. Then you get the favorable dice roll, and you win the fight with 1 hp left. Impossible to design, because that can happen against a mob of bandits (early game) just as much as it can happen against a difficult boss (mid to late-game). Depends very much on the situation and on attention from the Player.

Some battles I can engage and I'm being careless, because I'm shrugging it off as something easy, then I find myself in a bad situation. And with that said:

Every time I read those quotes I feel like raging.

Sawyer's philosphy on good combat appears to be: "I will give you 3 choices. The first is bad and you lose A and B. The second wins but you lose A. The third wins but you lose B." So in the end, I have to choose whether I want to lose A or B. Choices that matter are good, but they don't leave much room for creating thinking.

How did you manage to extract that from those quotes?

Edit: specifically?

Specifically ? Well...specifically my mind instantaneously corroborated the info with some other older quotes of Sawyer which led specifically to my conclusion.

But specifically Roguey could fill us in and specifically disprove of my assertion. Specifically.

Sawyer has said he wants to design something that requires the Player to pay attention. So even if you can win using several different methods, that doesn't mean it will be "easier". See my post with the 3 quotes on Page 612 of this thread for the specifics.

 

[uaciaut]

What is wrong with the miss mechanic?

I meant the "no miss mechanic" that Sawyer originally proposed.

OK what is wrong with it?

There is a whole thread about it here.

The miss mechanic was shit to begin with (as is that thread you linked btw), but it "felt" okay at the time because it was the best way to standardize damage at the time. Critical misses should exist though, i can agree with that much.


Edit: I don't get how people can think mage battles lasted for ages in BG2 when you could simply get an inquisitor with you and spam dispel to turn pretty much every mage fight into something trivial that would last 5 seconds.

I liked how the buff/debuff interaction went in BG2 as a layered stuff, with more powerful buffs requiring more powerful debuffs (a no-brainer) and certain debuffs only working on certain buffs, etc. I certainly wouldn't mind seeing the same layered interaction with different spells for different buff/debuff levels and some variety in what debuff can kill what buff.

Trying to work the fighting system around the way that you have to have a mage (or a debuffer) is a dumb idea imo since mages ARE buff-reliant to stay alive in fights, but giving some debuffs to non-mage classes could rectify that.