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

[visions]

Both options will yield you the same XP. Kind of hoping they will work on alternate solutions to assigned tasks as well.

I don't like this part. There should be harder to achieve solutions that would give more xp so that you'd be motivated to find the best possible solution that is achievable with your party.

skuphundaku and others: Remember that this is a class-based game.

It's possible/likely that it will borrow the 3E concept of class and cross-class skills. Perhaps different classes will get different amounts of different skill points. Your thief isn't going to be as good as combat as your fighter, no matter how skill points are divided.

Also this. I am not expecting the barbarian and the rogue to have the same ratio of combat to non-combat skill points. I hope I'm not too optimistic in this regard...

 

[octavius]

I want to ride a horse: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60...mbat-should-they-be-added-as-a-stretch-goals/

What do you think? On one hand, it's not important. On the other hand, it is fucking ridiculous how all these medieval fantasy worlds are mysteriously empty of horses and riders!

Especially the Gold Box games that had like hundreds of weapons that were designed specifically against cavalry...

 

[almondblight]

The decline is not in the fact that a jack-of-all-trades characters are viable. I would go as far as saying that a game in which a jack-of-all-trades character is viable is a better game because it's balanced better for all choices that the player may make, thus creating a more credible illusion of freedom.

Except it's not. If you design a combat encounter for someone with 50% combat and 50% diplomacy, then it's going to be pitifully easy for a pure combat player. In order to balance three nodes - 100% combat, 100% diplomacy, and a 50/50 character, it's going to be very difficult, since if you want challenging combat for the combat character, you'll have to either give them a diplomacy penalty or give the 50/50 character a bonus each time, and a separate path for the non diplomacy character. Alternatively, you could create a separate path for all three - more optimal, but much more work.

And that's with only two points that could be put into just two skills. If you want to allow the player to be able to other skills like sneaking and lockpicking, and if you want to include more points (1 - 10 in each skill), it becomes much more of a mess.

Fallout dealt with this by letting you do everything well. My characters always had one or two maxed combat proficiencies (enough for 95% eye shots at maximum range), maxed speech skills, and the maxed amount of science and repair I needed. I did just about everything in one play through. AoD seemed to go the route of forcing the player to specialize, and letting the Jack of All trades route be a more difficult path for people that know the game. Geneforge did it by making several areas where there was a combat path and a non-combat path (though you still would have some combat skills), and a number of areas you'd have to run through if you wanted a non-combat game (not sure if this would be possible, it seems like it'd involve a lot of running).

If you fail at combat because your build is weak against a certain enemy or encounter, you always have a non-combat backup in the PE system, which is shit because it doesn't punish idiocy.

If your magic missiles fail you kill them with your herbalism skills?

Combat should be an "oh fuck" moment for diplomat characters. It should be a last resort for them, and they should fucking suck at it. That's why they should also have to gather a party of good combatants and good supporters -- because it's a class & party-based game. You should have to make sacrifices at what you want to be good at. Your PARTY should somewhat be able to "cover all bases", not YOUR CHARACTER.

Is there any party based games where you have diplomat characters that don't have combat skills? Certainly not the Infinity Engine games, which this is based off of. The only games I can think of with pure diplomats are single character games like Age of Decadence and Fallout, and the later only if you invest in useless skills and skip large parts of the game.

I don't like this part. There should be harder to achieve solutions that would give more xp so that you'd be motivated to find the best possible solution that is achievable with your party.

So a player that can accomplish more difficult things becomes more powerful than one that can't? That'd seriously screw up late game balance.

 

[Zed]

Is there any party based games where you have diplomat characters that don't have combat skills? Certainly not the Infinity Engine games, which this is based off of. The only games I can think of with pure diplomats are single character games like Age of Decadence and Fallout, and the later only if you invest in useless skills and skip large parts of the game.

Okay, I exaggerated a bit.
I just don't want social characters to be the "easy route" (like in AoD for instance). I want combat to be the central aspect of the game, just like in IE.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

Am I the only one who took what he said to be basically nothing different from his approach to Fallout? I.E. "If you want a character who can specialize in non-combat it will be just as rewarding a game for you?" Where the hell are you guys getting the "It will mean you can do everything, wahhh!" bullshit from? Bunch of goddamn spoiled, retarded, mongoloid fucking babies you are.

In Fallout, you had only one type of skill points and a single skill pool with all kind of shills, both for combat and non-combat. The way I'm reading the PE update (and I don't seem to be the only one interpreting it this way), in PE there are going to be two kinds of skill points and two skill pools, one for combat, one for non-combat, all of which it would mean that you can, indeed, become good both at combat and at non-combat approaches. That's pure .

Pure. Fucking. Conjecture. In fact you have no idea beyond "This game is going to reward non-combat types just as much as combat types". That is all you know based on the update. Flailing your hands like the fuckin' thing is broken before it's built isn't going to get you anywhere. Let me be the first to eat my words if I'm wrong but until then, calm your shit down.

 

[pakoito]

Well seeing as this is a class based RPG you could easily have a 'Rider' class who fights on horseback with a lance or something and give them a series of skills, bonuses, penalties etc.

I think giving horses to everyone though might be a little too difficult to setup.

This question was raised a lot when we played P&P D&D. Most of the action happens in dungeons, caves, inns or temples. You cannot ride there, period. Leave the rhino at the door, I told my players.

So why bother specializing a hero in horseback combat when he cannot use it 99% of the time?

 

[sea]

This question was raised a lot when we played P&P D&D. Most of the action happens in dungeons, caves, inns or temples. You cannot ride there, period. Leave the rhino at the door, I told my players.

So why bother specializing a hero in horseback combat when he cannot use it 99% of the time?

Uh... so get/make a campaign that centers around horseback combat? Sure it makes no sense to do that when your party is otherwise designed for dungeon-delving, but just as you can run a D&D game about politics, subterfuge, etc. for thieves, assassins and diplomats, you can make a campaign centered around open warfare on the plains.

 

[Rostere]

Oh, come on, there has to be someone other than me who cares about this: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60594-ui/

 

[Roguey]

More words of Wisdom from Sawyer from SA:
http://forums.somethingawful.com/sh...=3506352&userid=17931&perpage=40&pagenumber=2

The weakness I see in most class-based systems that also use ability scores is that certain classes can invariably treat some ability scores as dump stats. Maybe once in a blue moon will you give a [shit] that your fighter has a 3 Charisma, but in 99.9% of circumstances, it will not negatively affect you at all.

This may sound bad, but I think it's because designers approach ability scores with realism in mind first. Using recent D&D editions as an example, they correlate ability scores with what a person realistically does, only later realizing that while everyone in the party can regularly benefit from AC, Reflex, and Initiative bonuses, most characters can be drooling buffoons, Charisma-wise, and suffer no ill game effects. You can't dump Wisdom because everyone suffers from that. You can't dump Dex because everyone suffers from that. Other stats are easier to dump.

Because different classes have different ability score needs, it produces lopsided/variable utility in the stats (e.g. see how 3E/3.5 designers had to wrestle with bonuses to Strength because even they knew that something was wrong). It also means certain build types are really only beneficial as pure roleplaying/gimmick builds. It's cool that I can RP those characters, but make no mistake: they're pretty bad in the field compared to "normal" builds. Such systems would be no worse for it if the "opt-out" weaknesses of dump stats were addressed at a fundamental level.

Attributes (if present): Not designed with realism in mind.

It will be real-time with pause. You will have full control of all members of your party. You will be able to use party formations, as in the Infinity Engine games.

I believe, I always believe that if the first motivation for a player participating in gameplay is something other than "it's really fun this way", you, designer, are in big trouble.

I don't think AI needs to be complex, but I do believe that tactical threats need to be complex, if that makes sense. You can actually have three different types of enemies using very simple AI in different ways to pose a difficult challenge to the player.

That said, I also liked working on the complex adventurer AI fights in the IE games and I think those are some of the most fun battles in those games. Filler combats are bad. If I could go back and remove 1/3 of the battle content (and areas) from IWD2, I would. There were a lot of solid fights in that game, but a lot of them resulted in drudgery. Even so, I think the best stuff came through when we mixed and matched enemy types that posed different threats to the player. A lot of those fights had simple AI but the enemy placement/reinforcement timing was heavily tuned.

Basic Chunnel posted:

In terms of animation and the like, are you aiming for a BG/IWD style system where I engage a low-level fighter in combat, and he swings three times in a round​

Rounds? Where we're going, we don't need rounds...

No rounds: Confirmed! Dee! Pee! Ess! Dee! Pee! Ess!

 

[CappenVarra]

It will be real-time with pause. You will have full control of all members of your party. You will be able to use party formations, as in the Infinity Engine games.

You know what would be cool? If formations weren't just cosmetic and actually applied to the party while moving (also known as: the definition of "formation"). Oh, what seductive dreams can men dream if given the opportunity...

Basic Chunnel posted:

In terms of animation and the like, are you aiming for a BG/IWD style system where I engage a low-level fighter in combat, and he swings three times in a round

Rounds? Where we're going, we don't need rounds...

No rounds: Confirmed! Dee! Pee! Ess! Dee! Pee! Ess!

Please, continue. If they ever confirm the use of deepeees, I want you to promptly notify me so I can cancel my pledge and rain holy hellfire that will leave only volcanic ash and obsidian in its wake...
: x

 

[Infinitron]

It will be real-time with pause. You will have full control of all members of your party. You will be able to use party formations, as in the Infinity Engine games.

You know what would be cool? If formations weren't just cosmetic and actually applied to the party while moving (also known as: the definition of "formation"). Oh, what seductive dreams can men dream if given the opportunity...

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60...n-like-them-so-much-why-not-make-them-deeper/

 

[Mother Russia]

D&D skill system is HORRIBLE. Each class gets their specific skills, and they only level those ones up. 4e system and star wars SAGA system were much better, but in the end even they are severely lacking.

IMO whatever skill system they use, every class should be able to choose which skill they want. Also, skills should be extremely useful.

Another way to do it, which is quite elegant and simple, is remove skills altogether and just use attributes for all checks.

 

[Infinitron]

Rarity of magic items http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60593-rarity-of-magic-items/

 

[skuphundaku]

The decline is not in the fact that a jack-of-all-trades characters are viable. I would go as far as saying that a game in which a jack-of-all-trades character is viable is a better game because it's balanced better for all choices that the player may make, thus creating a more credible illusion of freedom.

Except it's not. If you design a combat encounter for someone with 50% combat and 50% diplomacy, then it's going to be pitifully easy for a pure combat player. In order to balance three nodes - 100% combat, 100% diplomacy, and a 50/50 character, it's going to be very difficult, since if you want challenging combat for the combat character, you'll have to either give them a diplomacy penalty or give the 50/50 character a bonus each time, and a separate path for the non diplomacy character. Alternatively, you could create a separate path for all three - more optimal, but much more work.

And that's with only two points that could be put into just two skills. If you want to allow the player to be able to other skills like sneaking and lockpicking, and if you want to include more points (1 - 10 in each skill), it becomes much more of a mess.

Fallout dealt with this by letting you do everything well. My characters always had one or two maxed combat proficiencies (enough for 95% eye shots at maximum range), maxed speech skills, and the maxed amount of science and repair I needed. I did just about everything in one play through. AoD seemed to go the route of forcing the player to specialize, and letting the Jack of All trades route be a more difficult path for people that know the game. Geneforge did it by making several areas where there was a combat path and a non-combat path (though you still would have some combat skills), and a number of areas you'd have to run through if you wanted a non-combat game (not sure if this would be possible, it seems like it'd involve a lot of running).

You got it wrong. You are taking it as if, for each task (quest, etc. - you can call it whatever you like), there is only one (or more) way of solving it. Good RPGs provide the player with multiple ways to solve a task, some of them being non-violent. These multiple ways may include everything from having to duke it out with difficult enemies, which would need a fully combat-focused build, to solutions which include some non-combat skills and some less difficult fights and all the way to pure non-combat solutions that could be diplomacy-based, knowledge-based or stealth-based. In such a game, the player needs to understand the strengths and weaknesses of his character and plan accordingly. If the game system makes you an equally proficient fighter and diplomat, then it also obviates that need for planning, which is the RPG equivalent of popamole.

Fallout let you do everything well only if you were open to grinding in order to level up all those skills you're talking about. If you really think that you did everything in Fallout, and especially in Fallout2, in one playthrough, then you don't even know what you don't know. Also, the way the skills worked in Fallout was different than in AoD. In Fallout, if your skill was low, you simply had a low chance to succeed, but you still had a chance and that gave you the ability so save-scum in order to progress at any and all cost in most situations. The instances where there was a hard minimum were much less common. That shit doesn't work in a system like AoD's, where you always have a hard minimum requirement and the skills work by pass/fail.

If you fail at combat because your build is weak against a certain enemy or encounter, you always have a non-combat backup in the PE system, which is shit because it doesn't punish idiocy.

If your magic missiles fail you kill them with your herbalism skills?

That just goes to show that you missed the point entirely. Athe help us if Sawyer and the Obsidian team working on PE think the way you do.

 

[Volrath]

What was one of the most popular playstyles in Fallout: a sniper-diplomat.

 

[OSK]

Wow. It's a nice to see the Codex arguing over game mechanics again rather than fucking screen shots.

 

[bminorkey]

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60585-tropes-vs-women/

I'm really looking forward to this game, it makes me want to replay all of the old games (now, if I could just get PS:T to work properly...).

However, something I really hope to not see is the stereotypical Damsels in Distress and other unpleasant tropes. I mean, this is a fantasy world, equality is a possibility!

This isn't to say that Baldur's Gate, Planescape and all the other games are filled with such tropes, but I do think that it would be awesome if, when making Project Eternity, this is given some real consideration.

Maybe talk to Anita, who is behind Tropes vs Women in Video Games? (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/566429325/tropes-vs-women-in-video-games)

Anyone post this already?

 

[Volrath]

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60585-tropes-vs-women/

I'm really looking forward to this game, it makes me want to replay all of the old games (now, if I could just get PS:T to work properly...).

However, something I really hope to not see is the stereotypical Damsels in Distress and other unpleasant tropes. I mean, this is a fantasy world, equality is a possibility!

This isn't to say that Baldur's Gate, Planescape and all the other games are filled with such tropes, but I do think that it would be awesome if, when making Project Eternity, this is given some real consideration.

Maybe talk to Anita, who is behind Tropes vs Women in Video Games? (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/566429325/tropes-vs-women-in-video-games)

Yes, in the Codex vigilance thread

 

[Grunker]

That is such a shitty poll. The optimal dream-land scenario for me is tons of slots - boots, headgear, rings, armor, weapons, earrings, tattoos, nose-hair-hangings. However as far as the optimal drop-rate goes, I'd like something approaching rare.

 

[bminorkey]

Ah, must've missed that.

 

[Jarpie]

The droprate/avaibility of magic items should be rare enough for them to feel special, but there should be all types of gear as magic items pretty much as much as other kinds (as similar amounts/power/etc of swords (two-handed, long, short etc), warhammers, axes etc for example).

 

[DraQ]

Rarity of magic items http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60593-rarity-of-magic-items/

I'd like to be able to equip all of my toons with magic items in each slot by the end game. Just the number of powerful items should be scarce and acquiring a first item for each slot should be rather expensive/difficult compared to most of the recent RPGs where you can get a magic sword right of the bat.

The problem with very rare magic items is that they would not go too well with the setting, which definitely is not a rare/low magic setting. The other is that you would have to implement some sort of different tiers of non-magic items. Because it will be rather bland if my first shield will be also the one with which I will end up a game...

I volunteer to personally shoot everyone using the word "toon" in the context of RPG character in the head when Codexia rises to power.

 

[Jarpie]

Where this "toon" comes from anyway? I've always called it PC or player character.

 

[Infinitron]

World of Warcrap.

 

[DraQ]

World of Warcrap.