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

[Volourn]

"In BG it meant switching weapons a lot,"

No. No, it didn't. You only switched your weapons a lot if you fukkin' sucked.

 

[Vault Dweller]

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?

Because discovery is an important element in RPGs. Always been. You learn the ruleset, how the game is designed, what works and what doesn't (let's be realistic), what non-combat skills do and how useful they are, how severe the penalties are (everything sounds good on paper) by playing the game, which, coincidentally, fits the very concept of RPGs - you're a brand new adventurer who doesn't really know much, including what dangers lie ahead and best ways of dealing with them. Maybe your dagger is good against skeletons - only one way to find out. If you manage to kill one, it works. If you just scratched the bones, try getting something bigger and heavier, in the next life.

Trying to inform the player beforehand is a silly notion because you really can't. I remember interplay forums when IWD2 was released. "IS HOLY AVENGER IN THE GAME?!!!! What kinda sword is it? I want to make an informed decision when rolling my paladin! If it doesn't fit my weapon specialization my game will be ruined!!"

 

[Infinitron]

Because discovery is an important element in RPGs. Always been. You learn the ruleset, how the game is designed, what works and what doesn't (let's be realistic), what non-combat skills do and how useful they are, how severe the penalties are (everything sounds good on paper) by playing the game, which, coincidentally, fits the very concept of RPGs - you're a brand new adventurer who doesn't really know much, including what dangers lie ahead and best ways of dealing with them. Maybe your dagger is good against skeletons - only one way to find out. If you manage to kill one, it works. If you just scratched the bones, try getting something bigger and heavier, in the next life.

I think Josh's response to this would be that, no, a player should know how a game's systems work ahead of time (not necessarily before running the game for the first time, but before they become relevant in the game). It's only content that shouldn't be spoiled ahead of time.

So, basically:

Learning how to deal with a new, unexpected type of monster with no prior preparation = good. That's content.
Learning that a particular skill doesn't work the way you assumed only after spending a point on it = bad. That's systems.

 

[Hormalakh]

Because discovery is an important element in RPGs. Always been. You learn the ruleset, how the game is designed, what works and what doesn't (let's be realistic), what non-combat skills do and how useful they are, how severe the penalties are (everything sounds good on paper) by playing the game, which, coincidentally, fits the very concept of RPGs - you're a brand new adventurer who doesn't really know much, including what dangers lie ahead and best ways of dealing with them. Maybe your dagger is good against skeletons - only one way to find out. If you manage to kill one, it works. If you just scratched the bones, try getting something bigger and heavier, in the next life.

Trying to inform the player beforehand is a silly notion because you really can't. I remember interplay forums when IWD2 was released. "IS HOLY AVENGER IN THE GAME?!!!! What kinda sword is it? I want to make an informed decision when rolling my paladin! If it doesn't fit my weapon specialization my game will be ruined!!"

I don't disagree with you. To be completely frank, the fact that he's saying he wants to change what was a, in his own words, "natural system" into something else worries me. It seemed like a good system and I agree that discovery is important. The point is though, that we are outsiders looking in at a system that has been very poorly described to us. It seems to me that it's not that discovery is being shunned, but that it's a very cloudy and murky thing to understand the armor/weapon system currently. It seems to me that he's saying "It's hard to discover how the system works." When you use a magic sword with slashing against a normal mail, then you start to think "oh swords work well against mails!" but in reality, it's just that that particular sword works particularly well with that specific mail. So you have to sit and do this for every single armor/weapon. It sort of doesn't really have much of a system to it to an outsider. Unless of course, you've beaten the game and written down all the details and can now reference your spreadsheet and do the math.

He's got the spreadsheet in front of him and knows all the details, so he can make informed decisions. But a new player wouldn't have that information. I'm not saying a new player needs all the information. But new players should quickly be able to come up with a working idea of how the system works, in general. Then the players "roughly sketched out armor/weapon" system in his mind can adjust when new information is presented to him.

From what I understood, he was saying that he wants it to be more clear that X doesn't work against Y. Like it's an absolutely BAD IDEA to use X with Y. But X works fairly well against Z and A. Now figuring out the best possible combinations (to get optimal answers) would need discovery. But it should be easier to get some more information to make an informed decision.

All of this to say that presenting your data in an informed way is never a bad thing. This is like Design 101. It's like showing numbers in a graph. You can show your numbers in a pie chart, a line graph, a histogram, etc. But there are soem good ways to show the data, and some bad ways to show the data.

I need more information about his armor/weapon design before I can argue against him. A alpha or a beta test would be best. A video showing how it works is also good. But I'm really blind from where I stand. I can't make judgements.

 

[Infinitron]

Hormalakh

My suggestion to Josh was to keep the current system, but make the game have a very, very slow damage/DT "inflation curve". So basically, you'd never find that sword that does 200% damage. It wouldn't exist in the game.

This is how Baldur's Gate was, so it would fit. A suit of vanilla full plate was good for the entire game. So was any mundane magical sword, outside of monsters that required some minimum of "plusses" to hit.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I think Josh's response to this would be that, no, a player should know how a game's systems work ahead of time (not necessarily before running the game for the first time, but before they become relevant in the game). It's only content that shouldn't be spoiled ahead of time.

So, basically:

Learning how to deal with a new, unexpected type of monster with no prior preparation = good. That's content.
Learning that a particular skill doesn't work the way you assumed only after you took a point in it = bad. That's systems.

Conveying how a system works ahead of time is all nice and good, but there is one problem. You can't explain a complex system quickly, only a simple one. Josh's reason - "too complex to figure out without a spreadsheet" - is worrisome because it sounds like an attempt to make a system that every retard can play, not a system that Josh feels is the best for the game.

Your explanation works on a theoretical, "high level goals" level but it doesn't explain what's so complex about different damage types.

 

[Infinitron]

Conveying how a system works ahead of time is all nice and good, but there is one problem. You can't explain a complex system quickly, only a simple one. Josh's reason - "too complex to figure out without a spreadsheet" - is worrisome because it sounds like an attempt to make a system that every retard can play, not a system that Josh feels is the best for the game.

Your explanation works on a theoretical, "high level goals" level but it doesn't explain what's so complex about different damage types.

Well, as you can see by my response to Josh on Formspring, I don't necessarily disagree with you here.

 

[Hormalakh]

I wanted to make another example and I thought this deserved its own post. When he first started making his graded hit/miss system, it was graze/hit/crit. At first, it rubbed me the wrong way innately. I knew something was off. But I didn't have enough information to understand what he was trying to create. I asked him a bunch of questions on formspring, asking him to clarify the hit-miss system. He referred me to inspirations and described it futher and further. Basically enough that I knew exactly how it played. He said "MOBA" and I played a few LoL games thinking about only that mechanic as it played. I took in the positives and the negatives and I saw that others also had problems with it. I tried to think about what we lost as players with this design choice and made suggestions to him. A lot of players ultimately made a convincing enough argument because enough players understood his design choice. Then he adjusted it. Now we have miss/graze/hit/crit.


None of this could have happened if he was being vague about his mechanic. We had enough resources to see what was being described. Specific examples could be given. Then a reasonable argument could be made. Right now we don't have enough information. I would keep pestering Josh until I had a solid understand of his proposed system and saw it in action, then I can make decisions based on that. Until he comes up with something solid, I'll let him keep designing until his heart's content. But, you can rest assured that as soon as he's got something tangible I'll be on his case.


TL;DR. Josh needs to give me a working understanding of his armor/weapon system. Then can I sit and argue with him about how bad it is. I don't disagree with most people that his "changes" always make me feel uneasy. But I need details before I can unleash the nerd rage.

 

[Hormalakh]

Conveying how a system works ahead of time is all nice and good, but there is one problem. You can't explain a complex system quickly, only a simple one. Josh's reason - "too complex to figure out without a spreadsheet" - is worrisome because it sounds like an attempt to make a system that every retard can play, not a system that Josh feels is the best for the game.

Your explanation works on a theoretical, "high level goals" level but it doesn't explain what's so complex about different damage types.

That's not true. A good designer can explain a very complex system very quickly so that there is a rudimentary understanding of the system. Players can then add complexities to that system as they gain knowledge/discover. It is a fallacy to think that complex systems should be mis/not understood.

I worked as an electrical engineer for some time and design was always a huge deal. Making systems is easy. Making comprehensible systems is difficult.

An example: If I wanted to explain to someone how diabetes causes problems in the human body. I can start from several different perspectives. I can immediately get into how sugars non-enzymatically glycosylate proteins in the vascular structure and how this can cause morbidity and mortality. Or I can say "your blood vessels are like pipes. They serve blood to all the parts of your body. Diabetes is when the sugar "rusts" the piping in your body by sticking around in the blood for too long." Obviously this is a first-order model of the system at hand. The patient doesn't know about enzymes and all that extra jazz. But they have a rudimentary starting point from which to expand their knowledge.

 

[Captain Shrek]

Shit.

This guy is a bigger apologist than infinitron .

"The Voice(s) of Josh Sawyer"

 

[Hormalakh]

I'm not his apologist. I've just seen how he works and his thought processes are very similar to mine. When he comes up with a bad design decision, I'm on his case. I am invested in coming up with a good game. I just don't think yelling and screaming on the Codex will reach that goal though.

Anthony Davis once wrote that it's like politics: you gotta get in there and have your voice heard. But just like politics, uninformed masses can make some stupid ass decisions. You need to understand the problems/solutions first before you can make an informed decision.

Hormalakh

My suggestion to Josh was to keep the current system, but make the game have a very, very slow damage/DT "inflation curve". So basically, you'd never find that sword that does 200% damage. It wouldn't exist in the game.

This is how Baldur's Gate was, so it would fit. A suit of vanilla full plate was good for the entire game. So was any mundane magical sword, outside of monsters that required some minimum of "plusses" to hit.

Yeah I would ask him to not change his design quite yet. Is there another way he can provide that information to players that maybe makes it easier to understand? I thought that was what he was doing already. He wasn't really changing the system too much, just making it easier to get a foothold.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I don't disagree with you. To be completely frank, the fact that he's saying he wants to change what was a, in his own words, "natural system" into something else worries me. It seemed like a good system and I agree that discovery is important. The point is though, that we are outsiders looking in at a system that has been very poorly described to us. It seems to me that it's not that discovery is being shunned, but that it's a very cloudy and murky thing to understand the armor/weapon system currently.

That's what I have a problem with because there is nothing complex about different damage types, armor types, DR/DT, etc. Sure, it's more complex than fucking Diablo 3 with its award-winning single stat design, but it's not a rocket science.

Now I'm not saying that every game should have damage types. I can easily live without it. I'm saying that wanting to design it, being seemingly excited about it, and then saying "nah, too complex, man" sounds like worrying about the lowest common denominator too much. Kinda like France saying that homework is too hard and unfair to kids who don't want to study. Fuck that shit maybe?

It seems to me that he's saying "It's hard to discover how the system works."

Good? Unless you truly think that their system is so complex that you'll need a PhD to figure it out.

When you use a magic sword with slashing against a normal mail, then you start to think "oh swords work well against mails!" but in reality, it's just that that particular sword works particularly well with that specific mail. So you have to sit and do this for every single armor/weapon.

Not really. All it takes to grasp the design is one look at the weapon and armor stats. As for the magic weapons, depends on the design. If it's +1, then it won't make a 'crappy against a certain armor type' weapon any better.

He's got the spreadsheet in front of him and knows all the details, so he can make informed decisions. But a new player wouldn't have that information. I'm not saying a new player needs all the information. But new players should quickly be able to come up with a working idea of how the system works, in general. Then the players "roughly sketched out armor/weapon" system in his mind can adjust when new information is presented to him.

From what I understood, he was saying that he wants it to be more clear that X doesn't work against Y. Like it's an absolutely BAD IDEA to use X with Y. But X works fairly well against Z and A. Now figuring out the best possible combinations (to get optimal answers) would need discovery. But it should be easier to get some more information to make an informed decision.

Remember, IWD2? So, I'm playing it for the first time, my party armed to the teeth with bladed weapons, and run into the crystal golems. I hack and I slash and that's when the game tells me "Look, not sure if we mentioned it before, but we just want to make clear that whatever you're doing doesn't work against these golems. Like it's an absolutely BAD IDEA to stab them with daggers, not that there is anything wrong with daggers per se."

You think something like that can work in games? Or you think that people who like RPGs are too retarded and will think that golems can't be killed and the game is broken?

 

[Carrion]

I think Josh's response to this would be that, no, a player should know how a game's systems work ahead of time (not necessarily before running the game for the first time, but before they become relevant in the game). It's only content that shouldn't be spoiled ahead of time.

What I don't get is why he still insists on making game systems that don't even remotely follow real-world logic. At times it just sounds like his brain is working backwards or something.

 

[Hormalakh]

That's what I have a problem with because there is nothing complex about different damage types, armor types, DR/DT, etc. Sure, it's more complex than fucking Diablo 3 with its award-winning single stat design, but it's not a rocket science.

Now I'm not saying that every game should have damage types. I can easily live without it. I'm saying that wanting to design it, being seemingly excited about it, and then saying "nah, too complex, man" sounds like worrying about the lowest common denominator too much. Kinda like France saying that homework is too hard and unfair to kids who don't want to study. Fuck that shit maybe?


Good? Unless you truly think that their system is so complex that you'll need a PhD to figure it out.


Not really. All it takes to grasp the design is one look at the weapon and armor stats. As for the magic weapons, depends on the design. If it's +1, then it won't make a 'crappy against a certain armor type' weapon any better.


Remember, IWD2? So, I'm playing it for the first time, my party armed to the teeth with bladed weapons, and run into the crystal golems. I hack and I slash and that's when the game tells me "Look, not sure if we mentioned it before, but we just want to make clear that whatever you're doing doesn't work against these golems. Like it's an absolutely BAD IDEA to stab them with daggers, not that there is anything wrong with daggers per se."

I think we're on the same page. I basically agree with everything you said. I just need more information. I don't think he's dropping the whole system, but I could be wrong. I've sent him a couple of questions for clarification. Let's see what happens.

You think something like that can work in games? Or you think that people who like RPGs are too retarded and will think that golems can't be killed and the game is broken?

Believe it or not I am absolutely sure there are people out there who would think exactly that! Designing for the lowest common denominator is not what I think he's going for.

 

[Infinitron]

What I don't get is why he still insists on making game systems that don't even remotely follow real-world logic. At times it just sounds like his brain is working backwards or something.

Well, that's the "Sawyerist" way. You examine how people tend to play these sorts of games, and sort of reverse engineer a better design based on their play habits. Fit the game to the players, instead of only fitting the players to the game.

That's anathema to the design philosophy of games like Fallout or Age of Decadence, that throw the player into a harsh, pseudo-realistic and "unfair" system, where learning the system is just as much of a challenge as dealing with the enemies in the game. It's a different kind of experience.

It might be a good thing that Sawyer never got to make Van Buren - his approach is better suited to an Infinity Engine style game, I think.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Well, I can testify that people get very upset when their build doesn't work. They claim that since we've offered the freedom to make that build, we should have ensured success and guaranteed satisfaction. I assume that Sawyer has been reading such comments for a long longer and I don't blame him if he's tired of them.

My point is, however, that damage types don't affect your build in most systems and I doubt that they would have affected it in PE. It's a simple matter of using a different weapon. I don't recall what combat skills PE offers, but I doubt it's overly restrictive. Even if it is, the always hit system will ensure that your party can kill any beast or foe by ganging up on him/her/it and doing 50% of min damage per attack times 6.

 

[Brotherman Bill]

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?

Because discovery is an important element in RPGs. Always been. You learn the ruleset, how the game is designed, what works and what doesn't (let's be realistic), what non-combat skills do and how useful they are, how severe the penalties are (everything sounds good on paper) by playing the game, which, coincidentally, fits the very concept of RPGs - you're a brand new adventurer who doesn't really know much, including what dangers lie ahead and best ways of dealing with them. Maybe your dagger is good against skeletons - only one way to find out. If you manage to kill one, it works. If you just scratched the bones, try getting something bigger and heavier, in the next life.

Trying to inform the player beforehand is a silly notion because you really can't. I remember interplay forums when IWD2 was released. "IS HOLY AVENGER IN THE GAME?!!!! What kinda sword is it? I want to make an informed decision when rolling my paladin! If it doesn't fit my weapon specialization my game will be ruined!!"

Your example with the daggers isn't really related to what JS is talking about. His idea is that all content must be supported somehow. If daggers are good in some other situation, it's perfectly OK that they don't work vs skeletons. But if daggers are just there for teh lulz then that's not ok.

Discovering that one of the skills, like outdoorsman or medicine, is practically useless is not analogous to being an adventurer and learning what works and what doesn't. Because by the time you can rectify the tags or heavy initial investments then you have either restarted or finished the game. And the reason these skills sux isn't because of your choices, but because the developers chose not to develop these paths.

This type of learning is really only analogous to a nerd playing RPGs in his basement. The only thing tested here is meta knowledge, and how much you've lurked on boards discussing the game or how much you've played the game before.

This is also why people whine about holy avenger btw. If they knew their hammer specializing dude had some sort of support in the game they would feel free to experiment, but since there are so many wasted specs and perks and whatnot they want to know whether they just completely waste their specs or not. I can see that - being punished for not reading a strategy guide before playing the game is dumb.

 

[Brotherman Bill]

Even if it is, the always hit system will ensure that your party can kill any beast or foe by ganging up on him/her/it and doing 50% of min damage per attack times 6.

Relevant conversation:

So...looking at those attack roll mechanics: You only have a 5% chance of missing. By and large you'll either be hitting with full damage or hitting with half damage.

In most of the modern RPGs these days where stuff like to hit chance has more or less been removed, this is countered with HP bloat. If you're always hitting the enemy then the enemy simply has a shitload of HP to let them take more hits.

Frankly this is one of the most frustrating things to deal with and it leads to some really boring and arduous gameplay. Dragon Age 2 is an extreme example of what happens to encounter design and HP bars when To Hit chance is 'streamlined'.

I wonder how Sawyer et al. will work on making sure a system like that is both balanced and fun. The armour system looks like it might help with that but even that might not be enough.

If the Accuracy and target defense are the same value, these are how the results break down:

 

[Vault Dweller]

I know, I can read. What's your point?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Discovering that one of the skills, like outdoorsman or medicine, is practically useless is not analogous to being an adventurer and learning what works and what doesn't. Because by the time you can rectify the tags or heavy initial investments then you have either restarted or finished the game. And the reason these skills sux isn't because of your choices, but because the developers chose not to develop these paths.

Sure, it sucks. Does anyone argue that it doesn't? I thought the discussion was about damage types and why they were cut, not flavor skills.

This is also why people whine about holy avenger btw. If they knew their hammer specializing dude had some sort of support in the game they would feel free to experiment, but since there are so many wasted specs and perks and whatnot they want to know whether they just completely waste their specs or not. I can see that - being punished for not reading a strategy guide before playing the game is dumb.

Obviously, there was "some sort of support:" for their hammer dudes. You could buy any high level weapon and there were plenty of uniques too. If there was one thing IWD2 didn't lack that would be loot.

 

[Johannes]

It's not that damage and armor categories are TOO COMPLEX, more like they're just kinda pointless and trivial. Why should you make

For them to be tactically interesting, the different damagetypes must somehow vary beyond that class, too. Like how ranged and melee damage are different, for example - you have to change your approach against a resistant enemy, not just the ammunition used. Of course there can easily be several actually interesting and functionally different types of melee attacks too, at that point varying resistances can provide some extra flavor.



And as far as realism is concerned, they usual piercing/cutting/blunt categories also don't actually make too much sense. Take a mail armor for example, the usual paradigm is that it stops slashing attacks well, piercing mediocre, and does badly against blunt weapons. But looking at piercing weapons, it's a simple consideration whether the piercing weapon is small enough to go through a ring or not, otherwise it's as good as blunt. And a cutting weapon is as good as a blunt weapon. Then it's just a matter of how much force your blow.
Or fucking golems only harmed by crushing weapons - so take a blunt dagger and it'll be fine?
Definitely coming up with something actually realistic and interesting is possible too, sure, but at that point the combat probably has a bit different focus than a D&D-like.

 

[Moribund]

Yes, just what Johannes said. You either get it or not, I guess, hard as it is to think people could not get it.

Hormahlk instead of saying why it maybe not be as stupid as we think why not say what's supposedly good about any of this, like never missing. If you play the beta of that conqustador game you'll realize holy shit what a bad idea that is. You can balance hitting and missing without resulting to MMO clusterfuck mechanics. Especially done improperly and without all the reasons for it.

As stupid as all this is, it does provide amusement. As Shrek said this is the most over the top apologizing since the south lost the war. Plus, Vaginatron is sending Sawyer his notes on how to fix the mistakes! I must be lying in a coma somewhere, or this is a fugue state induced by taliban torture and I'm going to wake up hogtied and covered in bruises.

 

[Irenaeus]

Of course piercing/cutting/blunt categories make sense. In fact, the consequences of the different types of impacts in different materials and bodies should be taken further, to take account of all the problems mentioned. Yes, realism can be fun. That's how you design combat (in my perfect game, I guess). I can accept simpler combat, but that doesn't mean I will not bitch about it.

 

[Brotherman Bill]

I know, I can read. What's your point?

If the enemy beast or foe has a much higher defense rating than your teams accuracy, then you'll get a larger amount of misses and your statement that "Even if it is, the always hit system will ensure that your party can kill any beast or foe by ganging up on him/her/it and doing 50% of min damage per attack times 6" is not necessarily true.

Sure, it sucks. Does anyone argue that it doesn't? I thought the discussion was about damage types and why they were cut, not flavor skills.

I could swear you quoted hormalakh on JS's design philosophy, and that the quote was mostly about how players should be allowed to know the system on beforehand.

 

[Machocruz]

95% chance to hit. So this game isn't going to have combat animations? Because that's gonna look real stupid, wacking each other with swords and nobody knowing how to duck. Sounds like some instant gratification bullshit for the Beth/Bio crowd who complain about Morrowind/TB combat. KS project just to appease the same confederacy of dunces the AAA publishers do.

Project no-Integrity.

EDIT: herostratus informs us other wise. Damn, that takes the steam out of my sick burn above.