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

[DraQ]

Nothing new happened, they're talking about how you won't get XP for killing in PE

So? Sounds like the only way to make sense of an XP-based system.

Plus you can always kill or pickpocket questgivers to be an asshole and get extra stuff.

 

[Infinitron]

Nothing new happened, they're talking about how you won't get XP for killing in PE

So? Sounds like the only way to make sense of an XP-based system.

Plus you can always kill or pickpocket questgivers to be an asshole and get extra stuff.

Sure.

Some people find it fun when games give you systems that you can take advantage of and squeeze extra "juice" out of if you're very crafty. I can understand that, I guess, but I don't think it's a very important design goal for this type of game.

 

[IDtenT]

I can understand that, I guess, but I don't think it's a very important design goal.

That's because it's not a design goal. Lord British was never meant to die!

 

[evdk]

That's because it's not a design goal. Lord British was never meant to die!

Cease your larping.

 

[MicoSelva]

they're talking about how you won't get XP for killing in PE (including killing quest givers after you've done their quest for extra XP)

Wait, what?

I will need to see how this works in the end, but potentially .

 

[Infinitron]

they're talking about how you won't get XP for killing in PE (including killing quest givers after you've done their quest for extra XP)

Wait, what?

I will need to see how this works in the end, but potentially .

This is really old news.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63017-level-scaling-and-its-misuse/page-11#entry1298328
http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63017-level-scaling-and-its-misuse/page-14#entry1298679

 

[~RAGING BONER~]

I like Sawyer; he's pro-woman, pro-gay, pro-balance and an all around cool guy for an aspie.

Sure he may not come up with something as awesome as the BG2 magic system, but I don't doubt that his system will be better than DA:O...and at this point I'll settle for that.

oh and lol no turn based. Feels good not having to waste an hour killing rats in a cellar.

 

[Sensuki]

New title is just a bit of fun =P

 

[felipepepe]

Would be way more interesting is he added consequences instead of limitations... instead of simply not giving me xp because "balance", why not add in severe penalities, limit some quests according to karma, add powerful guards or bounty hunters, stuff like that, that adds to the game instead of removing.

If this was a P&P game, he would be the whinny GM saying "you can't do that, I wont' give you XP!!!11" instead of a DU-like GM going k' and throwing an army of paladins up your ass.

 

[Infinitron]

Would be way more interesting is he added consequences instead of limitations... instead of simply not giving me xp because "balance",

Removing kill XP isn't about balance.

Kill experience wasn't "removed" (it wasn't ever implemented) to prevent anyone from outleveling an area. When XP is rewarded for killing creatures, quests solutions than involve not killing creatures still systemically encourage players to go back and kill those creatures -- or make players feel like they have completed the quest "wrong" because they didn't kill the target. The issue isn't necessarily one of balance, because often players will exhibit the same behavior even if the amount of XP gained from creatures is extremely small.

The reason I refer to this as "degenerate gameplay" is because the player chose a non-combat solution but ultimately went back to using combat after the solution was selected because the game systemically provides an incentive to do so. When designers create non-combat resolutions and players select non-combat resolutions, I believe it's reasonable to assume they both created and selected those options because that's what they wanted to do. In PE, nothing will necessarily prevent the player from killing characters/creatures they avoided on a quest, but I don't think it's necessary to systematically reward them for doing so.

why not add in severe penalities, limit some quests according to karma, add powerful guards or bounty hunters, stuff like that, that adds to the game instead of removing.

What do those things have to do with experience points?

 

[Cyberarmy]

Is there any photo of MCA without him looking dramatic?

 

[Lancehead]

Would be way more interesting is he added consequences instead of limitations... instead of simply not giving me xp because "balance", why not add in severe penalities, limit some quests according to karma, add powerful guards or bounty hunters, stuff like that, that adds to the game instead of removing.

Don't see how they're related. The game can still send the bounty hunters whether or not you get xp for killing the quest giver.

To me, xp as the motivation to act is a very boring way to play because it's highly abstracted.

 

[felipepepe]

It's a lazy approach, he "broke a rule" instead of adressing it's consequences. If the system encourages me to kill everything just for meager 10xp, he should provide me a reason not to do it, add some weight to my decisions, not just remove rewards from what I shound't do.

Is like adding a heavily guarded bank to the game and leave the coffers empty, because you're not supposed to be rewarded from robbing it. Now I won't steal the game because I know it's empty, not because I don't want to or fear the consequences. Lazy and entitled as fuck.

Now instead of killing an NPC and facing the consequences, people will kill them and reload since they didn't gain nothing from it. This is dumbing down and streamlining a game to fit the creator's idea of "playing it right", nothing else.

 

[dunno lah]

Aye

I cannot into making up names so you can say that I "dunno" what to put as a SN. And I'm guessing you're familiar with "lah" too?

 

[MicoSelva]

This is really old news.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63017-level-scaling-and-its-misuse/page-11#entry1298328
http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63017-level-scaling-and-its-misuse/page-14#entry1298679

Doesn't matter. Either I missed it or forgot, so it is new to me.

 

[dunno lah]

fat Sawyer is a lulz Sawyer unlike fat Avellone who looked downright dorky(and unID-able)...

 

[Infinitron]

Now instead of killing an NPC and facing the consequences, people will kill them and reload since they didn't gain nothing from it. This is dumbing down and streamlining a game to fit the creator's idea of "playing it right", nothing else.

But you can STILL KILL THE NPCS AND THERE STILL WILL BE CONSEQUENCES. Nobody is preventing you from playing the game the way you want to. Incentives != rules. You aren't being controlled. You aren't being limited.

 

[Kz3r0]

This seems to be the real problem, while his focus on game mechanics is commendable all seems to be in the function of balance for the sake of balance.

This is bullshit, he gave explanation for his every decision on P:E

And people facepalmed harder and harder at every new explanation.

and none of them was "because balance, full stop". He pursues balance because he is trying to make every option that his game offers viable which is perfectly reasonable goal.

It isn't, viable can be acceptable as in different classes can approach the game in different and still effective ways, instead we have mages slamming people with grimoires as the final result of all the babbling about viability.

What is the use of an option that is clearly inferior, especially if you don't have enough information to recognize it as such while making a decision?

So we will have options that only differ in flavor, don't be mistaken, having everything equal will just meant that a warrior could do what a mage does and vice versa.

I think that problem with his approach is that most "imbalances" in RPGs came from area, encounter and quest design instead of ruleset itself (although usually it has its problems). It doesn't matter if he designs a perfect system if it isn't utilized properly in other areas of design.

And you nailed his worst mistake, design should come first, being anal about mechanics doesn't bode well in my opinion.

I get a strong nerd vibe from Sawyer, he will state his opinion because he have arguments for it without any thought how it will be received and without any attempts to sugarcoat it.

And people can find said arguments unconvincing and tell it openly, deal with it.

A lot of people mistake this kind of behavior for arrogance instead of lack of social skills, although I come to appreciate it a lot because of all the bullshit that is required in human communication. I don't think that anybody can argue that "problems" he identified in IE games are areas that can be improved (although his solutions aren't always good), but because of his attitude this is mistaken for arrogance and attacks on whole games that people love.

Oh look, the nostalgia goggles argument to disregard criticism, the novelty.

This coupled with constant trolling from Roguey produces a lot of unproductive arguments where people attack him because irrelevant bullshit like what games he plays or misinterpreting his arguments like "balance for the sake of balance".

Oh look, the it's just all trolling and personal attacks argument to shrug off criticism, please, fuck yourself, I never attacked him for his political views and lifestyle or whatever.

And this is a shame because although I disagree with a lot of his solutions I think that at least it can produce a good conversations about RPGs but instead we have 671 pages most of which are of Roguey's trolling.

And what this has to do with me?
Besides, I find Codex discussions on the subject much more interesting than Sawyer's pet peeves.

 

[Infinitron]

people will kill them and reload since they didn't gain nothing from it.

Seriously, felipe, this sentence is wrong on so many levels. You're not supposed to kill people in games for the experience points. Experience points are a byproduct of progress, not an objective. Your objective in a game is to finish quests, have fun, and beat the game. Not to horde experience points.

 

[Xeon]

Thread should be tagged with (THBA= Title Hijacked by Admins) or something or some people might get confused since Anthony Davis was praising Josh in a thread and blaming Josh in another.

I thought they said they were going to post some gameplay footage in a couple of weeks. Showing some combat or something. no?

 

[Infinitron]

Thread should be tagged with (THBA= Title Hijacked by Admins) or something or some people might get confused since Anthony Davis was praising Josh in a thread and blaming Josh in another.

I thought they said they were going to post some gameplay footage in a couple of weeks. Showing some combat or something. no?

Yes, there will be another prototype at some point. It's not here yet: http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...tarter-update-51-onward-to-prototype-2.82539/

 

[Kz3r0]

Would be way more interesting is he added consequences instead of limitations... instead of simply not giving me xp because "balance", why not add in severe penalities, limit some quests according to karma, add powerful guards or bounty hunters, stuff like that, that adds to the game instead of removing.

If this was a P&P game, he would be the whinny GM saying "you can't do that, I wont' give you XP!!!11" instead of a DU-like GM going k' and throwing an army of paladins up your ass.

This should be emphasized, all the babbling in the end is just limiting the player unpredictable actions, understandable, trying to figure out everything someone would do is a waste of resources, that's why you try to create a flexible enough system.
I think that what many people find so grating about Sawyer's arguments is that they reek of dumbing down, probably this is unfair, but the suspicion is there.

 

[Lancehead]

This should be emphasized, all the babbling in the end is just limiting the player unpredictable actions, understandable, trying to figure out everything someone would do is a waste of resources, that's why you try to create a flexible enough system.

Like the faction system?

 

[MicoSelva]

It's a lazy approach, he "broke a rule" instead of adressing it's consequences. If the system encourages me to kill everything just for meager 10xp, he should provide me a reason not to do it, add some weight to my decisions, not just remove rewards from what I shound't do.

I think You are approaching it from the wrong angle. Awarding XP for killing is a retarded legacy mechanic that should have been thrown out the window years ago. It has been copied from D&D to everything and we are so accustomed to it that it feels natural, but it really does not make any sense.

However, I am not saying that awarding XP for defeating enemies is wrong, especially if that defeating serves a purpose (like completing a quest). But why give XP for attacking and killing random NPCs? XP should be awarded for accomplishing some in-game goals.

For example, if You got a quest to gather money and You completed it by killing 100 NPCs and robbing them, that is fine. But You should get as much XP for earning this money by, for example, using in-game trading system to get rich.

 

[Infinitron]

Would be way more interesting is he added consequences instead of limitations... instead of simply not giving me xp because "balance", why not add in severe penalities, limit some quests according to karma, add powerful guards or bounty hunters, stuff like that, that adds to the game instead of removing.

If this was a P&P game, he would be the whinny GM saying "you can't do that, I wont' give you XP!!!11" instead of a DU-like GM going k' and throwing an army of paladins up your ass.

This should be emphasized, all the babbling in the end is just limiting the player unpredictable actions, understandable, trying to figure out everything someone would do is a waste of resources, that's why you try to create a flexible enough system.
I think that what many people find so grating about Sawyer's arguments is that they reek of dumbing down, probably this is unfair, but the suspicion is there.

All of those consequences might still be in the game. However, the problem with suggestions like that is that they're based on content, not on systems. Instead of creating a system that can't be abused, you need to create lots and lots of content instead. And content is expensive.

It's the same argument people have over resting in dungeons. "LOL instead of limiting resting, let me rest whenever I want, but the monsters could fortify the dungeon while I'm sleeping so there's a consequence!"

Yeah, great idea, genius. Who's gonna create all that content? How much time will it take to create Dungeon Simulator 2014 that could have been used to create stuff that's actually interesting?

Leave the simulationist virtual world stuff for Lord British and Todd Howard. It's never been part of Obsidian's design philosophy.