Development Info Project Eternity Kickstarter Update #39: Classes, Cooldowns, Attacks, Damage vs. Armor, and Tilesets

[tindrli]

YOU JUST HAVE TO WATCH A FIRST 10 SECONDS and you getz a picture of the RETARDOLAND!!!!

 

[Irenaeus]

Hardly a good reason to ditch something. "yeah, it's too complex, most people can't into numbers, you know... they just want to have fun, not look at spreadsheets". And who the fuck needs to look at a spreadsheet? If you see that your slashing weapon isn't very effective against, say, skeletons because suddenly you do a quarter of your normal damage, you pull out a hammer and see if it works any better.

Basically, if the difference is so minor that you need a spreadsheet to catch it, you don't need to switch weapons to increase your DPS by 3.8%. If the difference is noticeable, then you don't need a spreadsheet.

As unbelievable as it may sound, I can get a good idea about patterns just by glancing at data disposed in spreadsheets and maybe generating a graphix (I even earn money doing this). Examining the weapons/armors dynamic and determining their utility is part of the fun and mastery of the game. In addition, you control a party in the game and this variety encourages using different combinantions of classes and weapon proficiencies. It's all about designing a good mix of encounters and loot.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Not so much about not being fun (though there's that too), but more about turning the game into this:

<snip>

Of course lots of people will say, look at the complexity! Look at my options! I could try to put the star into the round hole, or into the square hole if I want.

Simply adding more options doesn't make the game more strategic.

^ This is an extreme. It doesn't have to be this way, obviously. In a nutshell, it's about using the right tools for the right job, instead of having a single tool for all occasions. I mean, nobody complains that most games have multiple stats and skills and gives up because he can't figure out how to build a character without a spreadsheet. In most cases, multiple skills add quite a lot without turning the game into a puzzle or options for the sake of options.

Same goes for weapon stats. Having a single stat sucks. Adding more stats like speed, for instance, greatly increases complexity without going overboard with it. Same goes for the damage type stats. Done in moderation they create interesting combinations that would make all weapons more useful to different characters.

 

[Alex]

Not so much about not being fun (though there's that too), but more about turning the game into this:

Of course lots of people will say, look at the complexity! Look at my options! I could try to put the star into the round hole, or into the square hole if I want.

Simply adding more options doesn't make the game more strategic.

maybe, but turning the game into

instead is hardly an improvement.

 

[almondblight]

maybe, but turning the game into

instead is hardly an improvement.

What's gone except for the illusion of complexity? It's like those dialogue options in BG2 that lead to the same response no matter what you pick.

A: Will you do my quest?

1. Of course!
2. I'll have to think about it.
3. For a knave like you? Never!
4. Do your quest? I'll find a way to hunt you down and kill you one day.

If the player chooses 1, 2, 3, or 4, then:

A: Think carefully about this, for you will be rewarded greatly if you do it. This quest will be open to you whenever you choose to go forward and complete it. I need you to kill a Dragon in the west and bring me back its head.

What's the point? To feel like I'm doing something instead of being forced to see the reality that I'm doing nothing?

 

[FeelTheRads]

Great example! I think you googled that!

Because certainly just clicking on a different dialog option and getting the same result is the same as changing your equipment and getting the same result (killing the enemy). There's really no other implications beyond that. You know, why the fuck would you even have classes or different abilities. In the end, the result is the same! You're actually doing nothing and pretending you're doing something!

 

[Irenaeus]

Just uninstall the game and watch the ending on Youpoop. It's the same as finishing it.

 

[tindrli]

maybe, but turning the game into

instead is hardly an improvement.

What's gone except for the illusion of complexity? It's like those dialogue options in BG2 that lead to the same response no matter what you pick.

A: Will you do my quest?

1. Of course!
2. I'll have to think about it.
3. For a knave like you? Never!
4. Do your quest? I'll find a way to hunt you down and kill you one day.

If the player chooses 1, 2, 3, or 4, then:

A: Think carefully about this, for you will be rewarded greatly if you do it. This quest will be open to you whenever you choose to go forward and complete it. I need you to kill a Dragon in the west and bring me back its head.

What's the point? To feel like I'm doing something instead of being forced to see the reality that I'm doing nothing?

That's IT BROS!!!!

BRAVO!!!!!!

and i cant imagine what game we would get for 1.100.000,00 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH

 

[Alex]

What's gone except for the illusion of complexity? It's like those dialogue options in BG2 that lead to the same response no matter what you pick.

A: Will you do my quest?

1. Of course!
2. I'll have to think about it.
3. For a knave like you? Never!
4. Do your quest? I'll find a way to hunt you down and kill you one day.

If the player chooses 1, 2, 3, or 4, then:

A: Think carefully about this, for you will be rewarded greatly if you do it. This quest will be open to you whenever you choose to go forward and complete it. I need you to kill a Dragon in the west and bring me back its head.

What's the point? To feel like I'm doing something instead of being forced to see the reality that I'm doing nothing?

Well, then add real options, instead of merely cosmetic ones. And as bad as Bioware options may seen, at least they show the devs recognize player initiative is important, even if they haven't really implemented it.

Also, I think you aren't considering the impact of different weapons against armor. It isn't just what is the best weapon for each monster. Since inventory is limited, you have to consider what is the best weapon (or maybe weapons) overall against the monsters in each area. So, you have a betting element, and a limited information element.

 

[Irenaeus]

Also, I think you aren't considering the impact of different weapons against armor. It isn't just what is the best weapon for each monster. Since inventory is limited, you have to consider what is the best weapon (or maybe weapons) overall against the monsters in each area. So, you have a betting element, and a limited information element.

^ This. Also, as I've said, you control a group of characters. Some can specialize in a type of weapon and be "the man" against a particular type of armor/enemy.

 

[almondblight]

Well, then add real options, instead of merely cosmetic ones.

Yes, we should be advocating real options, not for them to implement cosmetic options. All the "Oh no, they're taking away my cosmetic options" posts are as as anything else.

Also, I think you aren't considering the impact of different weapons against armor. It isn't just what is the best weapon for each monster. Since inventory is limited, you have to consider what is the best weapon (or maybe weapons) overall against the monsters in each area. So, you have a betting element, and a limited information element.

But it doesn't work terribly well if someone can run back to town and change weapons. I'm not sure I can think of many implementations where switching up hard counters works well. In roguelikes I guess they work better, but even then, soft counters are better than hard counters for weapon choices, and they'll actually lead to more scarcity. A mechanic that just has a guy being more susceptible to your hammer, which leads you to switching to your hammer when you face him doesn't add much. A guy that, say, rushes towards your mages and you have to decide if it's better to knock him back with your hammer or use several fast dagger attacks to slow him down (eh, you can probably think of better examples) is a bit more interesting.

 

[Maiandros]

the game goes down when redundancy is the answer to a re-evaluation of the overall complexity

.period.

You pick your main target audience, you acquaint yourself with its capabilities and desires, and cater to it, if you attract extras, all the better, but it's that..extras..the above is whoring..simple as that;
While a lot of good points are made here, i think that lacking a foundation, such as mine, correct me if i'm wrong, renders them inconsequential. Something needs to be applied only over something else.
- if you need to define the depth and variables of your combat, you need to have already set in ---stone--- the gameplay out of which it will emerge. You guys are broaching it backwards here, it should be the encounters, and the type of outcome [proggression-wise] that must define combat. TB was TB once due to its serving best the needs it adhered to. Not because it is an old-timers trademark, there to pose as a sales' carrot on a stick
- same with quests, nice example with the dragon..but that's the 'signpost', viewable only after you selected your path..it is branching the paths that matters. Are there side quests and compasses and question marks? Do objectives dynamically spawn? Do i forgo them alltogether, keep it simple and open? How much is it scripted?
- choices and morality..why not if your audience is younger folks enjoying Bioware/EA games. It sells. If however it's the demographic that got you here in the first place, aka they are by now older than you, you are down the wrong path already.. deciding how -many- choices and of what a -kind- does not wash the above out

 

[J_C]

This update was great and the game is looking better and better.

And FUCK YOU!

 

[Maiandros]

I can't fucking believe that people ON CODEX are saying that they want simple games. Worse even, the example given by Almond is a strawman. NO ONE wants that kind of complexity. Having more options is always good and typically implies that such options are overlapping a bit and not Star does Not Fit Squares childishness, I mean seriously? I can think of better ways to implement a large number of options at 5 am in the morning.

Fucking retards can't handle tactical depth.

If there is exactly one way to go about a particular issue, then the game is SHALLOW even if there are a lot of ways. The depth always comes from having multiple good ways to solve the same problem and NONE of them overpowered

i hope your gaming experience is (overall) a happier one than my own..

 

[almondblight]

I can't fucking believe that people ON CODEX are saying that they want simple games. Worse even, the example given by Almond is a strawman. NO ONE wants that kind of complexity.

Yeah. Except the post I was replying to:

And who the fuck needs to look at a spreadsheet? If you see that your slashing weapon isn't very effective against, say, skeletons because suddenly you do a quarter of your normal damage, you pull out a hammer and see if it works any better.

As well as others in the thread:

You want good and easily memorable diversity without having to look up fucking tables? Take a fucking cue from real life for once, Josh. Here is more or less how it works IRL, Josh:

Plate: Impervious to Slash / low susceptibility to Pierce / average susceptibility to Crush
Mail: low susceptibility to Slash / medium-high susceptibility to Pierce / high susceptibility to Crush
Other: medium to high susceptibility to pretty much everything.

But why not have a NWN2-style display window showing you the combat mechanics, that way you can just see a -10 next to your damage output and figure out that you might want to switch weapons

It was not possible for players to make informed decisions about what weapons to use against a given armor type because doing so required making relative damage vs. DT calculations for all weapon types , i.e. having a spreadsheet open for comparison at all times.

What's so fucking wrong with a spreadsheet? Are we babies or something?

:declining:

But yeah, other than all the posts about it, no one was talking about it.

 

[tuluse]

The difference with the old system was that one could probably do well enough attacking someone with slashing and piercing weapons or crushing and piercing depending entirely on the damage output of whichever the "ineffiecient" weapon/person was. Now that we have a straight up 50% loss before DT is even applied I see very little reason at all to use anything except slashing for no-armor, piercing for light-armor, crushing for heavy.

It sounded like attacking heavy armor with piercing or slashing was going to lead to doing minimum damage before, and it will likely be the same now.

 

[Country_Gravy]

I think this is a sign of good things down the road for this game.

What, the beard?

Yes. Look what it has done for:

And of course:

So, you see, this can only be a sign of total

 

[Moribund]

I can't fucking believe that people ON CODEX are saying that they want simple games.

Do you actually read this site? You have to go back 5 years to see anything else.

Worse even, the example given by Almond is a strawman. NO ONE wants that kind of complexity. Having more options is always good and typically implies that such options are overlapping a bit and not Star does Not Fit Squares childishness, I mean seriously? I can think of better ways to implement a large number of options at 5 am in the morning.

Theya re too retarded to see that's what they are getting or even asking for.

Fucking retards can't handle tactical depth.

hohoho

If there is exactly one way to go about a particular issue, then the game is SHALLOW even if there are a lot of ways. The depth always comes from having multiple good ways to solve the same problem and NONE of them overpowered.

I'm not sure about that but I'll play along even though I rather thing it's the quality of the options, the depth if you will. Not x ways to do some simple task but a way to do more complex tasks, such as setting up a big multijump in checkers.

e.g. The party encounter a Troll who is resistant to blunt weapons because of its thick skin and hardy against cold type damage due to its natural habitat in snowy mountains. Also, it is very difficult to affect its mind since it is so simple.

Now can you think of more than one way to fight it?

That is tactical depth.

So...tactics = multiple choice? Then really, may as well have no choice. Especially when you see sawyer is making all the choices equally good.

In BG it meant switching weapons a lot, what a snooze and waste of time to have that silly damage resistance to [some retarded weapon no one would ever use except to kill this one type of monster].

Now when you have cleave in a TB DnD game, you have some more options. Your position matters. You need to plan ahead. Your strategy matters, too. Do I build a dual wielder who will get 8 attacks or make a glaive guy who has reach and gets extra damage bonus.

You are thinking ahead very far planning your characters, or planning ahead for this encounter to get the best position. Not selecting the moster to attack, then selecting the right weapon or spell to use on it, and repeating ad nauseum. Anyone who wants that is the retard. That's the problem, like you sawyer has no idea what he's mumbling about. He thinks of combat like it's a goddam dialog you click through or something, which will make combat into sheer busywork. All the guys who complain so much combat is just trash mobs and dying due to that mean RNG are, I'll bet anything, just playing in a shit manner not getting what's going on. Because all the ideas that "fix" these "issues" lead straight to the toilet.

 

[Lord Andre]

Watching Sawyer design a combat system is epic fail / face palm every time he comes up with something.

For example, regarding the armor thing, I can think of a better system off the top of my head. Like so, index style:

- Scrap the concept of heavy/medium/light armor, it's stupid.
- Better armor as in plate over leather gives higher DT.
- Big weapons as in greataxes, greatswords, military hammers have huge damage but are very slow.
- Normal weapons as in swords, regular axes, spears have good damage and normal speed.
- Light weapons as in daggers, rapiers, short swords have low damage but are very, very fast.
- Balance speed and damage as in the points above so that against 0 DT, light weapons have best DPS, against medium DT (leather armor), normal weapons have best DPS, and against high DT (plate), big weapons have the best DPS.
- This also implies that if you attack an agile enemy with a big hammer, before you get your second strike in he has already hit you five times with his dagger. You would do huge damage but you might be dead before you get to deliver it.
- Also, the heavier your armor (as in weight) the more penalty you get to your weapon speed.
- This system brings more depth to the decision of how you equip your characters as there will always be a trade off and it also feels more organic.

There. I just made up a better system in 5 minutes and it also plays better to not having rounds and using a real time engine.

 

[Hormalakh]

I think a lot of you guys are over-reacting to basically nothing. Sawyer hasn't even come up with the newly proposed armor/weapon design and everyone is up in arms. His main point wasn't that people cannot into spreadsheets. His point was that you aren't making informed decisions; you can't actually make good decisions until you've played the game once through with all the weapons and have sat and done game-testing and have a spreadsheet to look at.

This isn't something "bad." He wants players to make informed decisions. He isn't taking away decisions, he just wants players to have all the information before they make one. Why exactly is that a bad thing?

Once again, if you have been following the conversation on the OEI forums, you'd realize this.

This is basically like the "cooldowns" furor. Everyone seemed like they had a stick up their ass about cool-downs. Then Sawyer says, "uhhh...we never really had cooldowns in the first place: we just weren't opposed to them." Then everyone mis-reads that AGAIN and says "finally! they got rid of cooldowns!" THEY NEVER HAD COOLDOWNS IN THE FIRST PLACE. I didn't know so many Codexers didn't understand nuance.

Basically, before you guys announce that the world is ending and that they ran away with your $4.1mil, wait for Sawyer to actually show you the design before you shit your pants. Unless you like feeling that "he changed his mind" because you whined enough.

 

[Irenaeus]

So, say something, it is poorly received, and then backtrack?

 

[Volourn]

"Don't people celebrate BG 2's mage battles for this same exact thing?"

No. I celebrate BG2 mage combat because one cana pproach it multiple ways and still be successful. Then again, I'm not people.

 

[Hormalakh]

They never said it! That's the point. Here's an example. They SAID combat XP is out. People continue to bitch and moan. See Formspring/OEI forums (one guy even got on his little soapbox and asked for Sawyer to be fired)/Kickstarter (one dofus starts the Obsidian Order of eternity fanservice: of which I am a part of. I wish I could get that money back, but anyway. He starts the OOoE and then says "f this game! it doesnt' have combat XP."). Everyone is clamoring against it. Sawyer is sticking to his guns. He says until it's shown to me through testing that this is a bad change, I'm not budging. That's the difference. Look at inventory. He's come out and detailed it well enough. People bitched. He stuck to his guns. This is different that him saying something vague like armor DT and how it currently works doesn't allow players to make informed decisions, and people going all crazy because they can't understand what he's saying.

Nuance people...nuance.

 

[Infinitron]

So, say something, it is poorly received, and then backtrack?

That's the collaborative development process of Kickstarter, my friend.

Vault Dweller, I've passed your comments onto Josh on his Formspring, abridged: http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/418437913374644691

 

[Irenaeus]

That's the collaborative development process of Kickstarter, my friend.

I can live with that.