Development Info Project Eternity Kickstarter Update #41: Dwarves and Doors (and a complete lack of proofreading)

[Delterius]

I have to say that I still doubt locked doors and chests can be anything but a trivial barrier in a game where you have SIX party members. You only need to invest in ONE specialized lock-picking character to open a locked door or chest. That's just not a lot in the larger scheme of things, no matter how gimped he is.

How is this any different from what I remember Todd saying: Since Attributes were mostly useless we have decided to reduce them to 3. We are also cutting down the skills, the magical discipline because they are trivial!

I think one difference is that Todd was bullshitting when he said that Attributes were useless, while Lockbashing, in the IE games at least, was never a substitute for Lockpicking. Dragons and Gorillas couldn't bash a lock back then. Which makes this entire issue a little bit silly: Bashing was never more than another, very situtional, way to interact with the gameworld, and its removed because of unnecessary potential to rob Lockpicking of its usefulness.

The potential to set off traps, destroy loot and, maybe, attract enemies is more than enough to effectively kill lockbashing. And yet even those who agree to those suggest it. And that is, in my opinion, a better way to convey Lockpicking's usefulness - through the uselessness of other options.

*sigh* Another Shrek reading comprehension failure.

So in what way is <character who spends points in Lockpicking> gimped?

 

[Infinitron]

I'm not channeling anyone. I'm not sure Sawyer gets this either.

Do you realize the difference between combat and lockpicking?

To win a difficult battle, you need many diverse and combat-capable characters.

To open a difficult lock, no matter how difficult it is, you only need ONE single rogue character.

That's one single character to invest in. It doesn't matter how costly that investment is - the price you're paying in the big picture is a trivial one, because he's just ONE guy. The strategic cost of opening locked chests and doors is thus a trivial one, and I doubt that even the existence of a lockpicking resource can fix this.

 

[Delterius]

and (may?) very well be tied to a single attribute ("intelligence"). Forcing a single character to invest in it.

Do we know this? Wouldn't that counter Sawyer's idea that a 'Fighter can learn lockpicking if he wants'?

 

[sea]

That's one single character to invest in. It doesn't matter how costly that investment is - the price you're paying in the big picture is a trivial one, because he's just ONE guy. The strategic cost of opening locked chests and doors is thus a trivial one, and I doubt that even the existence of a lockpicking resource can fix this.

Even though I would argue that a secondary skill like lockpicking shouldn't have as big an investment as other skills, I do think it's up to the game/scenario/quest designers and writers to come up with good situations to use your skills that demand more than one at once. Something as simple as having to sneak into a compound, pick the lock on a safe and steal documents inside can stress the player's competence and make the trade-offs of investing into those skills interesting, especially when there is an alternative to not doing so (the safe owner burns the documents if you get caught).

You have to ask yourself what kind of game this is. Is it a combat-oriented game where non-combat skills are more there for flavor, or is it one where non-combat is a genuine option and alternative to combat? In the case of the former, I'd actually say the strategic trade-offs of non-combat skills vs. combat skills should be moot, and that instead the question should be "which non-combat skill do invest in", knowing that the entire party won't be able to get all of them, or max them out, even combined. A game like Fallout, in comparison, with only a single character, makes non-combat skills a far greater investment, but also lets you beat the game without killing (or even directly fighting) anyone. I don't know if that would be appropriate for Project Eternity.

 

[Infinitron]

Even though I would argue that a secondary skill like lockpicking shouldn't have as big an investment as other skills, I do think it's up to the game/scenario/quest designers and writers to come up with good situations to use your skills that demand more than one at once. Something as simple as having to sneak into a compound, pick the lock on a safe and steal documents inside can stress the player's competence and make the trade-offs of investing into those skills interesting, especially when there is an alternative to not doing so (the safe owner burns the documents if you get caught).

Finally, somebody who gets it. Yes. Another thing I thought of was to have a place where you actually need more than one character with rogue skills (two locks that need to be picked simultaneously?)

But, that could never be more than a gimmick.

 

[Delterius]

Infinitron

Oh, I thought you were saying that specializing in non-combat options was a large price to pay.

Captain Shrek

In a sea of people accusing each other of not really understanding Sawyer's Gospel on Balance? I think he was obfuscated by the shitstorm, much like other Gospels.

 

[Alex]

why not make some doors bashable (wooden) and some/most non-bashable (iron)? Chests being unbreakable I can pretty much understand. Although, to be truthful, I don't really think this door breaking is that big of a deal. I mean we couldn't do this in a lot of the older games either. At some point, they can't implement every single little thing and have to draw the line.

As for Captain Shrek, the rogue will have special abilities and talents. I asked him about this specifically and he confirmed it. Lockpicking just isn't one of those abilities.

Not only would I rather have all doors in the game as possible to destroy, I would rather have destroyable walls too. I mean, it has been a feature of AD&D since the first edition, when it sometimes was a better idea to avoid a deathtrap room by circumventing it than trying to understand the lethal trap. Now, I don't mean to say I expect PE to do this (specially since walls are static, as far as I understand), but I still wanted to mention it to remind you guys how behind times CRPGs are. to date,very few computer RPGs implemented anything like a passwall spell or a dig spell. Those usually are the domains of rogue-likes. My point, thus, is that having "unbashable" doors is a big step back, in the opposite direction of where we should be going.

 

[St. Toxic]

You just don't understand Sawyer at all.

Key-foraging will be a skill that any class can learn, the keymaster just gets a one time bonus to it.

My point exactly. It takes no effort to compensate for the lack of a one time bonus, especially using second-grade worthless skillpoints, so why would you make a Keymaster when you can make a Badass Cocklord that just so happens to specialize in key-foraging between the qte rape sequences? Oh, what, you're going to give the Keymaster special key-powers in combat, make his key-chain nunchucks sting as bad as dick-shaped chainsaws? Professional game designing at its best right there.

Keymasters won't fail spot checks that look for keys? Or something?

Haven't you heard? Failing is not an option for anyone anymore.

Ah! You're right! I had forgot about that. Might create an ugly effect when/if characters casts shadows on walls though... But maybe they have a workaround of that, one possibility would be to render invisible walls where the pre-rendered walls are.

It'll just be a dark blob right underneath the 3d model.

Finally, somebody who gets it. Yes. Another thing I thought of was to have a place where you actually need more than one character with rogue skills (two locks that need to be picked simultaneously?)

But, that could never be more than a gimmick.

What about a situation where your rogue critically fails to pick a hard lock and breaks the lock, with the only available alternative to open the door/chest being to bash the fucker in? No, wait, don't tell me -- that's never going to happen is it?

 

[Infinitron]

In the case of the former, I'd actually say the strategic trade-offs of non-combat skills vs. combat skills should be moot, and that instead the question should be "which non-combat skill do invest in", knowing that the entire party won't be able to get all of them, or max them out, even combined.

Thing is, I strongly doubt anybody would play this kind of game without a rogue character who can, at the minimum, open locks and disarm traps (and I'd be very surprised if it's not possible to create a character who can do both of these things competently)

Maybe you can make it more interesting by giving rogues more wild and crazy abilities that you'd be sacrificing by focusing them on locks and traps instead, but it's hard for me to see anybody giving up on the contents of locked loot chests

 

[Delterius]

In a sea of people accusing each other of not really understanding Sawyer's Gospel on Balance? I think he was obfuscated by the shitstorm, much like other Gospels.

Except I don't care about 'balance' in any way that is being portrayed here. If balance is ahving all skills useful, well I am for it. If balance is making all builds useful, Fuck balance.

I think this means you have no concerns.

 

[Delterius]

In a sea of people accusing each other of not really understanding Sawyer's Gospel on Balance? I think he was obfuscated by the shitstorm, much like other Gospels.

Except I don't care about 'balance' in any way that is being portrayed here. If balance is ahving all skills useful, well I am for it. If balance is making all builds useful, Fuck balance.

I think this means you have no concerns.

Err. Excuse me?

This is a party-based game. The pre-generated companions probably complement each other's skill repertoire, and those who'll bother to make their own parties will spread their skills across the board. If every skill has a time to shine, then the only build that can possibly be bad is if you make 6 same-class and same-skill characters. But then, there'll always be combat as a non-skill resolution that 6 mages that can only read ancient languages can likely succeed at.

The only possible concern you could have is if every skill is always useful, essentially making every experience the same. Well, I doubt that's the case - both in terms of resources and by what Sawyer himself said, 'at times, you should feel good for choosing skill A and you should feel bad for not choosing skill B'. His balance principle is focused on the long-term.

 

[sea]

Thing is, I strongly doubt anybody would play this kind of game without a rogue character who can, at the minimum, open locks and disarm traps (and I'd be very surprised if it's not possible to create a character who can do both of these things competently)

Maybe you can make it more interesting by giving rogues more wild and crazy abilities that you'd be sacrificing by focusing them on locks and traps instead, but it's hard for me to see anybody giving up on the contents of locked loot chests

So have more than just cliche skills that are interesting and useful?

Maybe rogues have an Acrobatics skill that lets them scale walls and make great leaps? Or a Lore skill that lets them figure out riddles? Or Bard skill that allows them to tell tales and distract people? Or a Disguise skill that lets them blend into a crowd? There's always a danger in having one or two particular skills be too important, but it's definitely possible to balance things by providing more (sometimes necessary) alternatives. If you're especially concerned with lockpicking, then reduce the number of locked chests or require additional skills to open them (Traps, Dispelling, etc.).

 

[Delterius]

Which is ironic. Giving every skill spotlight is the thing you need to do in order to make utility characters interesting. But then again, that might just be why utility and combat competence were segregated.

One thing is designing one archetype out of 3 (spellcaster/thief/fighter - hybrids excluded) and making that the utility character with a few but always present skills. If you start adding troves of skills, especially some that make more sense to other archetypes (read ancient languages sound more like a scholarly mage's than a sawy thief's), then it makes sense to open up utility to other characters. Making utility characters more useful in combat is a natural thing after that.

 

[Delterius]

Which is ironic. Giving every skill spotlight is the thing you need to do in order to make utility characters interesting. But then again, that might just be why utility and combat competence were segregated.

One thing is designing one archetype out of 3 (spellcaster/thief/fighter - hybrids excluded) and making that the utility character with a few but always present skills. If you start adding troves of skills, especially some that make more sense to other archetypes (read ancient languages sound more like a scholarly mage's than a sawy thief's), then it makes sense to open up utility to other characters. Making utility characters more useful in combat is a natural thing after that.

Have you played AoD?

If you haven't try the Loremaster route.

I'll wait untill thursday to play AoD, but I was under the impression that it wasn't combat-centric and that a character archetype can be nearly useless in combat.

 

[Delterius]

I'll wait untill thursday to play AoD, but I was under the impression that it wasn't combat-centric and that a character archetype can be nearly useless in combat.

Play the Beta for christ's sake! It is one of those games that do both right!

But thursday is so close.

 

[Infinitron]

If you're especially concerned with lockpicking, then reduce the number of locked chests

Well, that's an idea. In Baldur's Gate, for instance, locked chests were fairly common, and spread throughout the world. If you make locked chests so uncommon as to have the status of one-off "special encounters", then that certainly changes things.

But here we have a possible collision of simulationism and gamism. Typically, the adventuring party in a fantasy RPG will find plenty of chests that "realistically" should be locked. But if you decide to make locked chests very rare in the interests of skill balance, then you can't allow that.

 

[Hobz]

Did they not state you won't use the same points for combat skills and non-combat skills ?
That would make the investment in lockpicking trivial unless there are lots of useful and fun skills to use and/or the possibility to combine them to achieve specific goals like having your bard distract a guard so your thief may climb a wall to get through the windows and then lockpick the drawer to steal documents your literate character can hopefully translate.

 

[Duraframe300]

At the very beginning of development it was how In combat 'stamina' (read psudo health) regeneration is amazing and necessary and Cooldowns are a good excuse for removing 'save-scumming' and 'rest-spamming'. Now this idiot has been forced to take that off he has other retardation set in his brain to make all classes equal. I am just wondering how long will it be before this system is also altered. It is just a matter of making enough noise to let people understand how stupid such ideas are.

?

Aren't both of these things still in?

 

[Infinitron]

"In combat stamina regeneration" was never officially "in", except in Shrek's nightmares. Josh just didn't explicitly rule it out until recently.

 

[Infinitron]

No, you had arguments about stamina regeneration in general (which is still in the game). Not in-combat stamina regeneration.

 

[Captain Shrek]

No, you had arguments about stamina regeneration in general (which is still in the game). Not in-combat stamina regeneration.

Dig up the posts moron.

 

[Infinitron]

Don't feel like it. But, hey maybe you're right. Roguey, care to weigh in?

 

[Captain Shrek]

Don't feel like it. But, hey maybe you're right. Roguey, care to weigh in?

The simple proof is that I *always* used kiting as an argument.

 

[Excidium]

And there were plenty of old games where we could do that. If I could do something in a game released over 20 years ago I sure as hell expect something made today to allow that.

it's fucking core RPG stuff.

Those games were poorly designed pseudo-simulation garbage. You shouldn't be able to opt out of investing in a skill.

Why not? What's so terribly wrong with multiple solutions in an RPG?

And it's not like bashing makes lockpicking useless. It alerts enemies, automatically triggers traps, etc.

 

[Delterius]

Shit. You are arguing about your own arguing.