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

[Arkadin]

Okay so the aim is to have every skill have a degradable benefit in combat???????

But take Arcanum. Even though there is one PC in the game, there's more than enough crafting available for an entire party of characters. Unless you feel the need for every character to craft, there should be at least enough varied specializations even in that system for at least 3 crafters in a party. Of course, "crafting" was not its own skill, either.

 

[Sensuki]

No, the aim is that you would theoretically want every skill with every character.

If that is the case I've only seen combat-related examples so far.

 

[MicoSelva]

I find it interesting that the most controversial updates have been written by Tim Cain.
Crafting & Durability: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/528227
Cooldowns: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/318515

Don't forget monks.

Am I the only one who remembers that weapons would break in the early game of BG? And I never even played it.

Yeah. One thing I never figured out - did that stop happening after you cleared out the Nashkel mines?

Yep

You, sir, are wrong. Non-magical iron-based weapons kept breaking even after that. You probably just weren't using them anymore.

MMORPG crafting (with auto-learning recipes on level up? wut)

Exactly like in Arcanum.

 

[Infinitron]

Time to give Grunker and Blaine a lesson in verbal logic.

I'm not talking about people who dislike durability but are okay with time limits. I'm making a statement ONLY about the people who hate time limits. I'm saying that those people ALSO hate durability.

Hate time limits --> Hate durability

Why do the time limit haters hate durability? I've already explained that earlier in this thread:

I think what people fear about durability is that it adds an additional "layer of worries" to the game that isn't traditionally a part of isometric RPGs. Constantly fretting about the state of your weapons and armor, having to think of when and how you'll repair them.

It's also one of the reasons people disliked the Spirit Eater mechanic in MotB, and time limit mechanics in general. "Stop nagging me with this ticking counter, game! I want to be RELAXED!"

Durability is something that makes them nervous. It's a counter that is constantly ticking down while they play the game, just like a time limit.

So, you see, I'm not talking about you. IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE GUYS.

 

[Logic_error]

I think you have to understand that Spirit bar is nothing like weapon durability. Spirit energy diminishes only on rest or travel and encourages conservative play. The enormous issue with IE games was that they were designed in a careless way. I mean that you could rest ALMOST everywhere and regain everything.

Weapon durability does not address any such problems. But rather just exists to justify an otherwise useless skill.

 

[Infinitron]

I think you have to understand that Spirit bar is nothing like weapon durability. Spirit energy diminishes only on rest or travel and encourages conservative play. The enormous issue with IE games was that they were designed in a careless way. I mean that you could rest ALMOST everywhere and regain everything.

Weapon durability does not address any such problems. But rather just exists to justify an otherwise useless skill.

Read more of this thread and the earlier Project Eternity Kickstarter updates. The resting issue has already been addressed in other ways. This has nothing to do with resting.

 

[Logic_error]

This has nothing to do with resting.

Indeed. If you read what I wrote correctly, it has nothing to do with anything whatsoever. By comparing spirit bar and degradation you are asking if apples are akin to oranges.

 

[Infinitron]

'sup Drog.

 

[Darth Roxor]

Yeah dude, wtf, all that shit has already been addressed at page 539, how the fuck did you not read it, stupid newfag shit

 

[Blaine]

Durability is something that makes them nervous. It's a counter that is constantly ticking down while they play the game, just like a time limit.

I understood that part of what you're driving at from the very first. Do you understand what I'm driving at, though? A time limit is only appropriate if there's a good reason for it. The same is true of durability mechanics. That's been my point since my very first post on the subject. "We need a gold sink" is a bad reason to include a durability mechanic.

You're arguing that durability mechanics will add a layer of "worry" to the game, and that's true. There's a whole pile of other mechanics we could add on to "make the game more hardcore," though. Should we add a bunch of those to PE as well? Arguing against including any of those mechanics isn't necessarily arguing to make the game less hardcore; most of them simply aren't appropriate for PE.

So, you see, I'm not talking about you. IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE GUYS.

I just fail to see the relevancy of pointing it out in the context of this thread.

 

[Infinitron]

You're arguing that durability mechanics will add a layer of "worry" to the game, and that's true. There's a whole pile of other mechanics we could add on to "make the game more hardcore." Should we add a whole bunch of those? Arguing against including any of those mechanics isn't necessarily arguing to make the game less hardcore.

Okay, but the same applies to limited inventory, resting and healing mechanics, save-or-die spells, etc.

When Josh Sawyer "removed" those things from Project Eternity, people on the Codex, including yourself, whined and complained that he was dumbing the game down.

What's the matter, Codex? Streamlining is a good thing now?

While true, I just fail to see the relevancy of pointing it out in the context of this thread.

The context is me explaining why Obsidian should have anticipated that people would be butthurt about durability. And by "people" I mean people in general, not people on the Codex.

 

[Excidium]

What's the matter, Codex? Streamlining is a good thing now?

It is when it makes the game better.

 

[Blaine]

Okay, but the same applies to limited inventory, resting and healing mechanics, save-or-die spells, etc.

When Josh Sawyer "removed" those things from Project Eternity, people on the Codex, including yourself, whined and complained that he was dumbing the game down.

I most certainly did not.

Wait, are you talking about the one or two jokes I made regarding fighters regenerating stamina during combat? Come on, now. Regenerating health is a wide-open door just begging to be exploited. Don't pigeonhole people into the "OMG WHINERS" category for the slightest of criticisms, jokes, or infractions.

What's the matter, Codex? Streamlining is a good thing now?

Technically it's not even in the game yet, nor was it in any of the other IE games except in a very token manner. I know what you're doing, and so do you: You're leveraging the general Codexian sentiment that games shouldn't be dumbed down to justify the projected inclusion of durability mechanics. Again, there are dozens of other mechanics we could add to "make the game hardcore." Should we include all of those, too?

Actually, we should include one: Turn-based combat.

 

[Infinitron]

What's the matter, Codex? Streamlining is a good thing now?

It is when it makes the game better.

Meh, that has nothing to do with it. In truth, it's all about expectations. You don't expect durability mechanics in an IE-like game, so you oppose them.

But imagine if Project Eternity had been released with durability mechanics without Obsidian telling anybody they'd be in the game in advance. Obviously many tards would complain about them, prompting Obsidian to consider removing them in the sequel.

You think the Codex wouldn't have 100 pages full of rage over that decision? "Don't dumb the game down for the noobs Obsidian!!!1" We'd all be patting ourselves on the back for being able to appreciate these complex and hardcore mechanics.

Once again Obsidian fuck themselves by telling people too much instead of just making the game they want to.

 

[Logic_error]

What's the matter, Codex? Streamlining is a good thing now?

It is when it makes the game better.

Exactly. Removing parts of the game that are only annoyance is not dumbing it down. I would call something dumbing down when a viable mechanics that makes sense in the context of the game was removed.

 

[Blaine]

I do appreciate Infinitron's Back to the Future approach to justifying all of Josh and Tim's design decisions. It's certainly innovative.

 

[Sensuki]

I don't see how hard it is to understand why there is a lot of complaint about the issue:

Item Durability exists because of these three things

Money-sink
Gives the Crafting skill a reason to be taken by more than one character
Gives Crafting a per-character sliding benefit to coincide with the Stealth skill

None of these reasons are good reasons to implement Item Durability.

It's not an attempt to be 'hardcore' because they've limited the item slots that have durability to weapons, armor and shields so it is less annoying than having to repair everything.

It is equally as retarded in my opinion to do something like what Sawyer proposes if durability was removed - to give characters who have the Crafting skill the ability to give their weapons with a damage bonus that degrades over time.
Clearly it is not about durability itself, it is solely about the three issues above - Sawyer is bothered by various complaints about the IWD games even if they are corner-case complaints and he has a mandate to create a revolutionary skill system.

If they said 'we're having durability like Diablo 2' I probably wouldn't be complaining anywhere near as much as I am now.

My problems with the whole issue are in order:

The fact that all skills HAVE to have a combat-related, per-character sliding benefit to make the choice between them a difficult one.
The fact that he thinks that one person per party skills are a bad thing because nooby players will pick suboptimal skills and potentially waste their points
The fact that they are including item durability for the sole reason to tack onto crafting to make it a more useful skill

Those facts to me speak all kinds of wrong.

Once again Obsidian fuck themselves by telling people too much instead of just making the game they want to.

Good because now they know that they've herpaderped a bit with their skill system.

 

[Infinitron]

I do appreciate Infinitron's Back to the Future approach to justifying all of Josh and Tim's design decisions. It's certainly innovative.

Keep on mocking me, I'm sure it's easier to do than deal with the fact that you're a hypocrite.

Again: Imagine that durability mechanics were a fait accompli. They're a done deal. In the game. This is Project Eternity now. It's it's own thing now, not a hypothetical Infinity Engine clone one year off.

Would you be in favor of removing durability mechanics in the sequel? Do you think most of the Codex would be in favor of removing them in the sequel?

 

[Blaine]

Keep on mocking me, I'm sure it's easier to do than deal with the fact that you're a hypocrite.

I'm sure painting me as a hypocrite without cause makes it easier to dismiss the fact that durability is being added to PE for the wrong reasons, with no good reasons (except ones speculated by posters in this thread) in evidence yet.

Again: Imagine that durability mechanics were a fait accompli. They're a done deal. In the game. This is Project Eternity now. It's it's own thing now, not a hypothetical Infinity Engine clone one year off.

Would you be in favor of removing durability mechanics in the sequel? Do you think most of the Codex would be in favor of removing them in the sequel?

You seem to view this as a slam-dunk argument, but I can imagine that any conceivable game mechanic is in the final product. I can plug anything at all into your scenario and ask the same trap question (a trap that, when sprung, is "A-HA! You're a hypocrite in favor of dumbing down!"), which is why it's a junk argument.

 

[Infinitron]

The fact that he thinks that one person per party skills are a bad thing because nooby players will pick suboptimal skills and potentially waste their points

I don't see what noobs have to do with it. There's nothing wrong with giving you more reasons to pick a skill. That's called giving more choices to the player. The skill appears on my list during level-up? I want to have reasons to pick that skill!

Durability may or may not be a good mechanic on its own, but I see nothing wrong with adding mechanics to the game to make skills more useful.

You seem to view this as a slam-dunk argument, but I can imagine that any conceivable game mechanic is in the final product. I can plug anything at all into your scenario and ask the same question, which is why it's a junk argument.

Actually, it isn't. There are many people on the Codex who'd want an RPG that simulates reality entirely, if that was possible. So they'd want every mechanic conceivable in the game.

 

[Kem0sabe]

I don't mind item durability or their planned crafting system, as long as i don't have to be stuck carting around multiple weapons per character on dungeons runs because there it's inconvenient to repair items mid-dungeon when they brake. Repair kits and dungeon crafting stations would be a good complement to their intended implementation of both systems.

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

There's nothing wrong with giving you more reasons to pick a skill. That's called giving more choices to the player.

This is an extremely arbitrary way of giving the player more "choice". I know true-blooded gamists wouldn't have cared about this, but I think most people would have been bothered if they'd tacked on an arbitrary combat bonus to Fallout's gambling skill just to make it a more viable option for investment.

 

[Sensuki]

The fact that he thinks that one person per party skills are a bad thing because nooby players will pick suboptimal skills and potentially waste their points

I don't see what noobs have to do with it. There's nothing wrong with giving you more reasons to pick a skill. That's called giving more choices to the player. The skill appears on my list during level-up? I want to have reasons to pick that skill!

Durability may or may not be a good mechanic on its own, but I see nothing wrong with adding mechanics to the game to make skills more useful.

Here is what noobs have to do with it (not necessarily noobs, but negating or lessening the impact of making long-term strategical errors in character building)

http://forums.somethingawful.com/sh...d=17931&perpage=40&pagenumber=2#post407722037

In the context of combat options, it means the person built character(s) in a way that makes them either a) not viable in combat or b) limited in a way they did not understand (i.e. viable, but not enjoyable/satisfying). A minor example of this would be misunderstanding how weapons are classified in Fallout 3 (Big Guns are often misunderstood) and buying perks/building a character around them.

Offering non-combat options is great, but if the person wanted to actually be good at combat, that doesn't solve the problem. The same problems can also apply to non-combat options. You need 80 Speech, 8 IN, and 10th level to buy Sassy Chatter perk, so you build a character with 8 IN, then forget why you did that and five minutes later buy a trait that lowers your IN. Twelve hours into the game, you hit 10th level and realize what you did.

There's a difference between the sting of suffering the consequences of a known trade-off and the crushing disappointment of realizing you made an error.

http://forums.somethingawful.com/sh...d=17931&perpage=40&pagenumber=2#post407726683

I think many of you would be blown away by how often players will look directly at a description of an option, pause, seem to analyze it, and then select it without putting 2 and 2 together until much later.

When that happens and the error results in, let's say, ~15 minutes of lost time, as a designer I go, "Hey dummy, pay attention." When that happens and the error goes unnoticed for 5... 10... 20 hours, the problem is so far in the past that I would rather just sigh and slide an emergency exit button toward them.

As a non-system-related example, in Fallout: New Vegas, we pop up a message box before the end of the game. It says (paraphrased) HEY MAN THIS IS THE END OF THE GAME. IF YOU WANT TO KEEP PLAYING, YOU SHOULD NOT START THIS. BECAUSE IT IS THE END. AND THE GAME WILL BE OVER. Even so, a huge number of people missed it or claimed to have missed it, so we later had to hard-code in an extra auto-save game at that point.

I could take some sort of grumpy tough-guy attitude and say "Well, tough shit," but I don't think that's beneficial to me or the player.

http://forums.somethingawful.com/sh...d=17931&perpage=40&pagenumber=3#post407880122

Okay, I'd really like everyone to read my response to this, because it's important to me.

A lot of people are not great at games. I don't mean they are terrible at them, but they aren't great. They may or may not realize this, but when you get right down to it and see them sit down at a game and start to play, they do pretty well but some stuff just slips by. In RPGs, often that error is a strategic one that you don't immediately get stung by. The poison bites you 10, 20, 30 hours down the road.

I don't know what sort of person you're picturing in your head, but from comments that a lot of people make, I get the feeling you see a moron, a person who doesn't really like games, who isn't enthusiastic about them in the same way that you are. In some cases, this is true. But I've seen hundreds of volunteer and professional testers come and go. Most of them are actually pretty intelligent. They like or love games. They like or love RPGs and have played a bunch of them. They're still not terrific at them. They miss a bunch of things and they make a bunch of mistakes.

Even among hardcore PC RPG fans, there is a wide spectrum of skill, experience, and preference. When I started at Black Isle, I designed a bunch of fights in IWD that only a handful of veteran BG testers could get through. Memorably, I saw a QA tester blow a fuse because a fight in Lower Dorn's Deep was "impossible". When I showed him how I got through it, I started off by having my casters go through six rounds of buffs. "What are you doing?" he asked. "Uh... buffing my party?" This seemed normal to me. DUH YEAH BUFF YOUR PARTY TO HELL AND BACK LOCK AND LOAD PAY ATTENTION FFFFFFFFFF. Despite his high experience with RPGs and Baldur's Gate, he just... never thought of it. The problem was that the entire fight was balanced around a party that was optimally built and lit up like a Christmas tree from stacked buffs.

That's a combat example, but it really applies across the board: conversation details, reputation loss/gain, etc. Some players really do play as hard as they say they will. They stoically accept the consequences of companion death, of a dialogue node they carelessly picked 8 hours ago, of an Ironman combat that is going down the drain. For those players, the ability to turn off the "in case you missed it..." features is important. I get that and would like to support it as much as we can.

But again, just to be clear, a lot of actual players actually need these things. I'm not saying this because players come up to me and say, "Josh, I need this." I'm saying this because I'll talk to a tester (volunteer or pro) with a ton of RPG experience and later watch him or her play remotely. Or I'll pop open a Let's Play on YouTube from an enthusiastic player and watch how things turn out. Sometimes they ace it, sometimes they don't. Either way, what I see on that monitor doesn't lie.

Besides that I don't think that Crafting NEEDS to be a skill that multiple characters have to take. In their current skill system I'd rather see it removed from skills and become an arbitrary action that every player can do.

 

[Infinitron]

Sensuki I don't really care about Josh's motivations. I'd prefer to think about how Crafting and Durability affect me.

But it's an extremely arbitrary way of giving the player more "choice". I know true-blooded gamists wouldn't have cared about this, but I think most people would have been bothered if they'd tacked on an arbitrary combat bonus to Fallout's gambling skill just to make it a more viable option for investment.

It'd probably be better to remove Gambling entirely than do that. Maybe the same is true for Crafting.

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

But it's an extremely arbitrary way of giving the player more "choice". I know true-blooded gamists wouldn't have cared about this, but I think most people would have been bothered if they'd tacked on an arbitrary combat bonus to Fallout's gambling skill just to make it a more viable option for investment.

It'd probably be better to remove Gambling entirely than do that. Maybe the same is true for Crafting.

Sure, but you're always going to end up with specialized skills that don't neatly balance in the Sawyeristic way; the only way to still do so would either be to go for huge arbitrary gamist leaps or to remove them like you said. Neither gives the player any meaningful additional choices.