Game News Project Eternity Kickstarter Update #58: Crafting and Durability

[Rake]

It's one thing if you have a bunch of different tiers of equipment damage and various ways to counteract or avoid it, adding an additional layer of depth to combat encounters and pre-planning. What I gather from the description, however, it sounds much like the basic item wear system most often implemented in free to play mmo's, where the main goal is to simply add more strain to the player's economy in continuously forcing repairs and restocks or making the player spec in a skill that does little more than balance out the expenses without granting any additional benefits. I don't know if that's the case here, as I don't follow P:E too closely, but it's my initial reaction from reading the op. Are scrolls of town portal in?

I think i read somewhere that teleportation is out of that game, unless is small distance(same screen or something like that)

 

[St. Toxic]

I think i read somewhere that teleportation is out of that game, unless is small distance(same screen or something like that)

If that's the case, then at least you'll actually have some consequences of items getting completely worn out, even if it does sound like an easily avoidable scenario.

 

[crawlkill]

Lock picking? "Fuck that shit, why have skills checks I'd just savescum around anyway. Just give me that loot."

This can and routinely is averted in a number of ways. Minimums on breaking into non-critical locked areas, alternate resource-consuming ways to breach locks (obsessively hoarding explosives in Fallouts 1/2, anyone?), lockpicking minigames (actually the only part of Oblivion I liked for having some rhythm to it. the Fallout 3/Skyrim one is numb. Alpha Protocol find-the-still-data-in-a-sea-of-noise one was interesting.), and also the simple straightforwardness, optionalness and reward factor-ness of it (hitting F2 and clicking a locked container in Baldur's Gate doesn't take substantially longer than just clicking it, and I get a manipulative little sound effect, a ridiculously out-of-scale experience reward and the knowledge that I've got some loot I wouldn't have otherwise). Not so maintenance mechanics, which are -mandatory- just to be operating at normal efficiency. You're never going to go "Man, I'm so glad my weapons are working, like they are nine-tenths of the time!" but you sure are going to go "Well, fuck, now I'm in the one-tenth of the time where my weapons aren't working." And what if you can't take down the flesh intruders at the bottom of the dungeon because you then can't out-damage their regen? Are you gonna call the game quits? Just say "fuck it, this dungeon wins because of my damaged swords?" Or are you gonna go back to town, repair your weapons and come back to kick their regenerating asses? All you're doing is adding an "errand" step to the process. That appeals?

Choosing which spells to memorise? "Why should I want to waste time on boring decisions like this. Games should not be tedious. If I choose wrong for a battle I'd just reload and rest-spam anyway."

Did you quit your last IE game the last time you chose the wrong spells for a fight? Again it's sounding like some Codexers only play RPGs in IRON MAN mode. I can only come away with that impression, since they seem to know exactly how many saves and how many rests are permissible (one and none). Spell memorization is a part of decisionmaking to push out your capability curve. Changing your spell list to adapt to situations is a core feature of D&D-based games. Resting to regain and change spells is, too. Management of an "ineffectiveness number" isn't gonna make you feel clever when you do it right. It's gonna make you feel bitter when it intrudes on your gameplay.

Resting and Healing? "Lame. What does it add to the game? Does messing around with healing spells make me a better person or test my reflexes? Just give me a bar that rejuvenates automatically, and let me get on with roflstomping some monsters."

I'm sorry, what's the substantial difference between these two models, except that tabletop D&D long ago decided that an eight-hour rest is what impossible godlike fantasy superheroes need to recharge? Was needing to rest in Baldur's Gate ever substantially more difficult than just regenning post-combat in Dragon Age? Were you reeeally so scared of those random encounters with twelve kobolds that popped up? And I have to ask you again if the last time you had to -rest twice- in a dungeon in Baldur's Gate if you then quit that whole save because it had been -roont,- just roont.

And certain games are, in fact, aimed at gamers who dislike these "stuck-on mechanics" as you term them. Then we get MMO-like gameplay with an awesome button. Some gamers prefer more complex gameplay and devs have to choose which audience to cater to. PE seems to be aiming for more mechanics rather than less, which I'm happy with, although I understand if you're not.

My entire point is that this isn't complexity. It's just bloat. And yes, there's a species of gamer that thinks any time you add another number to a statistics screen the underlying game becomes "more complex," but that species is...wrong. If it's mandatory just to be operating normally, it's boring--everyone will have the skill, visit the NPC, whatever it takes to make use of the mechanic. The only time you notice it is when you forget about it. I don't personally find "Shit, I can't kill the dragon because I forgot to hit repair all in the last outpost" moments all that enriching.

 

[Monty]

Again it's sounding like some Codexers only play RPGs in IRON MAN mode. I can only come away with that impression, since they seem to know exactly how many saves and how many rests are permissible (one and none). Spell memorization is a part of decisionmaking to push out your capability curve. Changing your spell list to adapt to situations is a core feature of D&D-based games. Resting to regain and change spells is, too. Management of an "ineffectiveness number" isn't gonna make you feel clever when you do it right. It's gonna make you feel bitter when it intrudes on your gameplay.

Instead of telling me what does, and does not appeal to me in a game, why not just accept that there are gamers with different tastes to yours? Yes, I do enjoy the challenge of limiting my resting and saving. If I get stuck in a dungeon with a sub-optimal selection of spells for a given enemy I enjoy finding different ways of winning instead of reloading and resting so I have the optimal selection. Very rarely does a battle prove impossible and force one to do this. Tuluse mentioned above that he allows himself two rests per dungeon and I've seen many people on this forum who enjoy the challenge of playing iron man - what's wrong with that?

My entire point is that this isn't complexity. It's just bloat. And yes, there's a species of gamer that thinks any time you add another number to a statistics screen the underlying game becomes "more complex," but that species is...wrong. If it's mandatory just to be operating normally, it's boring--everyone will have the skill, visit the NPC, whatever it takes to make use of the mechanic. The only time you notice it is when you forget about it. I don't personally find "Shit, I can't kill the dragon because I forgot to hit repair all in the last outpost" moments all that enriching.

If you think a durability mechanic is unnecessary then fair enough, other people on this thread have said the same. But you seem to be assuming the worst about it, I'm hoping the likes of Sawyer et al won't put something in that's as pointless as clicking 'repair all', or being free to return to town any any point in a dungeon, hence my example in my previous post where one had to make a choice between a character resting/healing or repairing a damaged weapon.

Other things being equal, yes I do consider games with more mechanics and statistics to be more complex (and for me, more rewarding). They obviously have to be well implemented though or they could indeed be boring. Where I disagree with you is your use of 'theories' like "the myth of the hardcore" or "boredom simulator gameplay" to describe these mechanics and gameplay styles, as it obviously just reflects your preference rather than a general rule. And as I said earlier, you're lucky as most modern gamers (and games) appear to share your tastes. Hence why Project Eternity was kickstarted as something different and more old-school than what has been churned out recently.

 

[crawlkill]

Hence why Project Eternity was kickstarted as something different and more old-school than what has been churned out recently.

PE was kickstarted to be a tribute to Infinity Engine games, which are almost entirely absent of meaningless bolted-on "errand" features.

 

[Monty]

Hence why Project Eternity was kickstarted as something different and more old-school than what has been churned out recently.

PE was kickstarted to be a tribute to Infinity Engine games, which are almost entirely absent of meaningless bolted-on "errand" features.

If they can somehow make maintenance compelling and not just a requirement/encouragement to go trudging back to town every time something randomly breaks (looking at you, Baldur's Gate 1)

 

[crawlkill]

Hence why Project Eternity was kickstarted as something different and more old-school than what has been churned out recently.

PE was kickstarted to be a tribute to Infinity Engine games, which are almost entirely absent of meaningless bolted-on "errand" features.

If they can somehow make maintenance compelling and not just a requirement/encouragement to go trudging back to town every time something randomly breaks (looking at you, Baldur's Gate 1)

...so because Baldur's Gate 1 did something ridiculously ill-advised PE should, too? BG1 breakage became a nonissue almost instantly, soon as you picked up magical weapons.

 

[Infinitron]

Yep yep, crawlkill appears to be some kind of HHR-style quasi-troll. Approach with due caution.

 

[crawlkill]

I don't see how "BG1 has retarded breakage mechanics that annoy you the first couple hours you play the game" is incompatible with "PE is meant as a tribute to IE games, which are almost entirely absent of meaningless bolted-on errand mechanics." Pretty sure those two ideas fit together just fine. If you feel like an annoyance from the first fifth of one IE game entirely excluded from all other titles in the engine is definitive of what IE games are, you're...confusing.

 

[Rake]

 

[Duraframe300]

Update (on crafting)

A few points of clarification:

* "Crafting" is one skill, but the crafting system uses multiple skills. I.e., the crafting system does not rely on the existence of the Crafting skill.

* Other than reaching the edge of a map to access the world map, there is no fast-travel in PE. That said, we will likely avoid the IWD-style 5-level dungeons without semi-regular shortcuts back to the surface (N.B.: this does not mean Skyrim-style loops).

* Most items do take up space in personal inventories! The party Stash is unlimited, but the Pack (made of personal inventories) is not. Crafting items (and quest items) always go into (and come out of) the Stash. We are doing this specifically to address common complaints about crafting items cluttering the inventory. Since crafting is typically done at camps or other non-combat locations, allowing the items to come out of the Stash doesn't seem to create any problems.

As I posted on SA, Crafting (the skill) and its associated subsystems (like durability) were the elements I felt least confident about in our skill system. I strongly believe that choices within an array should give the player reasonably balanced benefits. Because certain fundamental skills (like Stealth) can clearly benefit from multiple party members taking them and can contribute to party effectiveness in combat, I believe that other skills should do the same in their own way -- enough to make all of them appealing choices on multiple party members. This also has the benefit of making the uses of skills much higher-frequency than the individual uses that depend on designer content (e.g. unlocking doors or gaining a dialogue/quest option).

As an example, Medicine in its various Fallout forms contributes to the efficacy of stimpaks. There are many other places were Medicine can be used in quests and dialogue, but it has high-frequency use with stimpaks (in or between combats). It's a benefit that can apply to any character who has the skill, even if a character with a higher rating in a party may be "the guy" to perform the high-difficulty actions.

With all of the skills other than Crafting (specifically), those high-frequency benefits/uses were easy to come by. Crafting presented some difficulties and, as I wrote previously, I was concerned about the lack of systemic drains in the economy. Many people have mentioned a lot of potential uses for wealth. Most of them are great ideas and ones that we plan to use, but the vast majority of them are not systemic, rather content-dependent or scripted instances (e.g. bribes). However, it is clear from discussions here and elsewhere that the long-term balance of the economy is not a concern for most players who voiced their opinions -- and almost certainly not in the endgame.

Based on discussions on the forums and conversations I had with people on the team, we will be doing the following:

* Removing durability as a mechanic on items.

* Removing the Crafting skill (specifically). The crafting system and its associated mechanics will remain, as-is.

Ultimately, solving skill imbalance and endgame wealth abundance problems is not worth what players perceive as uninteresting and unenjoyable gameplay. I can still solve the skill imbalance problems by removing the problem skill. As for endgame wealth abundance, we will continue to create places for you to use wealth in the economy: unique items, the stronghold, optional quest/dialogue gates, etc. Ultimately, if those options go unused, I'll have to trust that the majority of players won't be significantly troubled by an excess of wealth in the late game.

Thanks for all of your feedback.

 

[Infinitron]

 

[tuluse]

The only way to cure a cancer is to cut it out.

 

[Rake]

Problem Infinitron ?

 

[Shadenuat]

I like it when item turns red and you have to bring that hammer cursor, and click it, and that cool sound plays...
maybe it's just Pavlov's reflex after playing old games.


But to be fair, durability as mechanics would only be cool in a game where when you go into adventure, you can't go back, where time spent is a resource too. Then it'd be a conflict of resources, not just gold sink.

 

[Shevek]

Getting rid of the crafting skills and item durability were both the right calls. Here is my thinking on the subject.

1. The game is a homage to the IE games. BG1/2 were, in part, inspirations for PE. These games did not have crafting skills though BG1/2 had smiths that could make things for you with proper components. This is certainly close to keeping in line with that.

2. Crafting skills have never really been very balanced when compared to other skills.

Recall ToEE for a moment. In that game, you were pretty much gimping yourself if you did not have crafting. Not only could you only get the highest modifiers on items through crafting but crafting allowed you to create items that were severely under-represented in the gameworld and craft an entire party around said items. Failure to have crafting could theoretically invalidate several builds in that game (due to using underrepresented weapons, etc) by the time you reach mid game. Without metagaming, you could screw yourself. If ever an advancement path becomes basically "required" to reach optimal potential is ceases to be a true "choice."

Look at Obsidian's own FO New Vegas. If you made a Hand Loader in that game, you much more awesome than not. Seriously, you did more damage, you never ran out of ammo unless you were willfully stupid, etc. After playing the game a couple of times, I learned that reloading is pretty much a no-brainer. Similar no-brainers: enough Survival for "Them's Good Eatin'" and, if using energy weapons, enough science to combine/create required energy ammo. One could forgive this in a survival game like FO where a player creating his own tools and sustenance makes sense in setting but this is not the case with PE, I think.

Skills should have at least some semblance of balance and yet I have never played a mainstream game that managed to do this with crafting skills. Again, I have seen games do speech skills right, combat skills right and stealth skills right but rarely have I seen a worthwhile crafting skills system that was not essentially a required advancement path or, at the very least, far better than bartering, stealing or killing for similar items.

3. Item durability can be done well but only if the aim is to create a world frought with scarcity and heavy in simulation (hence the recent FO's etc). However, the reason stated for PE's durability system seemed strange. They wanted to created item durability issues as a money sink. Essentially, they wanted to penalize players for using their items not to create a greater simulation but to take away player gold (similar to why some MMOs do this). Essentially, if the aim of the system is merely to limit player success, then perhaps the system should be rethought and alternate means to reduce amounts of available gold should be considered.

 

[Vault Dweller]

As I posted on SA, Crafting (the skill) and its associated subsystems (like durability) were the elements I felt least confident about in our skill system. I strongly believe that choices within an array should give the player reasonably balanced benefits.

Either you invest in combat skills and hit more often (for example) or you invest less in combat and put these points in Crafting and make better gear. So, basically, it's a way to trade accuracy for extra damage and give the player another skill to play with and customize/define his character.

Because certain fundamental skills (like Stealth) can clearly benefit from multiple party members taking them and can contribute to party effectiveness in combat, I believe that other skills should do the same in their own way -- enough to make all of them appealing choices on multiple party members. This also has the benefit of making the uses of skills much higher-frequency than the individual uses that depend on designer content (e.g. unlocking doors or gaining a dialogue/quest option).

As an example, Medicine in its various Fallout forms contributes to the efficacy of stimpaks. There are many other places were Medicine can be used in quests and dialogue, but it has high-frequency use with stimpaks (in or between combats). It's a benefit that can apply to any character who has the skill, even if a character with a higher rating in a party may be "the guy" to perform the high-difficulty actions.

Hate to disappoint Sawyer but the only reason to invest in 'Medicine' skill in Fallouts was the overabundance of points and the implant schematics (not because you needed them, but because the idea was cool). You regenerated health when traveling and stimpaks were never in short supply, so the bonus wasn't worth the investment.

Overall, it doesn't matter (in my opinion) if something is a high use skill or not. Does it have value to the player? If it does, then it's a good skill, even if you use it rarely. If it doesn't, then it's a bad skill (in its current implantation), even if you attach it some 'frequent use' activity like healing.

Last, I don't think that having a skill that only one party member will need is a problem and if it is, it has a simple solution: more 'single character' skills. Then one party member will handle crafting, another will handle healing, another will specialize in lore or arcane or alchemy or or spellcraft or sleigh of hand, etc.

* Removing the Crafting skill (specifically). The crafting system and its associated mechanics will remain, as-is.

It's one thing to remove a feature, it's quite another to remove the skill but leave the rest. Why not remove all skills? You don't need the Healing skill, just collect and eat some herbs. You don't need the Sneaking skill, just watch the shadows and NPCs' directions. You don't need the Speech skill just pick a line. Oh wait...

 

[Rake]

It's one thing to remove a feature, it's quite another to remove the skill but leave the rest.

But they can't remove crafting as a feature.(pity) They promished crafting as a strech goal and now they are forced to put it in whether they want it or not.

You don't need the Speech skill just pick a line. Oh wait...

I think of this as a positive. I prefer the PS:T model where the dialogue options that apear to you depent on your stats. There will be low/high inteligence options, and maybe more. The fact that you still have to read what your character says and pick accordingly is way better to just picking the [speech] option.

 

[Infinitron]

That's not what VD means, though. He's asking why not "de-systemize" speech entirely.

Does it have value to the player? If it does, then it's a good skill, even if you use it rarely.

Sawyer would of course argue that such skills do not in fact have value to most players.

Luckily, there are games like Age of Decadence which are aimed at an audience that does value such skills. Everybody's satisfied!

 

[Jasede]

I wish I could care. Crafting. Okay.

 

[Roguey]

Either you invest in combat skills and hit more often (for example) or you invest less in combat and put these points in Crafting and make better gear. So, basically, it's a way to trade accuracy for extra damage and give the player another skill to play with and customize/define his character.

Project Eternity doesn't work this way (nor 3rd edition D&D for that matter), so why bring this hypothetical scenario up?

Last, I don't think that having a skill that only one party member will need is a problem and if it is, it has a simple solution: more 'single character' skills. Then one party member will handle crafting, another will handle healing, another will specialize in lore or arcane or alchemy or or spellcraft or sleigh of hand, etc.

If you invest into crafting, and later find a companion you want to use who also has points in crafting, one of you has wasted points. That is a problem and not something one should just accept.

It's one thing to remove a feature, it's quite another to remove the skill but leave the rest. Why not remove all skills? You don't need the Healing skill, just collect and eat some herbs. You don't need the Sneaking skill, just watch the shadows and NPCs' directions. You don't need the Speech skill just pick a line. Oh wait...

Everyone in the party can benefit from having a healing or sneaking skill or suffer the penalty for not having it. The same can't be said for crafting. Moreover, there will still be non-crafting-skill, ability, and talent requirements to craft certain recipes, so it's not like you'll be able to craft whatever you want.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Either you invest in combat skills and hit more often (for example) or you invest less in combat and put these points in Crafting and make better gear. So, basically, it's a way to trade accuracy for extra damage and give the player another skill to play with and customize/define his character.

Project Eternity doesn't work this way (nor 3rd edition D&D for that matter), so why bring this hypothetical scenario up?

I didn't read all the updates or forum post, so I probably missed a lot, but what does DnD have to do with anything? As for how PE works, it can work any damn way Sawyer wants, no?

Anyway, Sawyer's argument was that Crafting is:

- a bitch to balance
- used rarely
- hard to connect to something used frequently (if I have to guess, durability was their attempt to introduce a mechanic that would make Crafting a frequently used skill, which was the wrong way to go about it)

So, I commented on the first point, giving a quick example. Regardless of what combat skills do in PE, my point is that you can split the linear investment in combat worthiness, by allowing you to invest in better gear, basically. Then the equation becomes 0.8xcombat skill =0.2xcrafting skill = 1.0xcombat skill. Why do it? Because it takes nothing from people who prefer to focus on combat but it provides an alternative for people who want one, who want to define their characters differently.

Last, I don't think that having a skill that only one party member will need is a problem and if it is, it has a simple solution: more 'single character' skills. Then one party member will handle crafting, another will handle healing, another will specialize in lore or arcane or alchemy or or spellcraft or sleigh of hand, etc.

If you invest into crafting, and later find a companion you want to use who also has points in crafting, one of you has wasted points.

:gasp:

It's like specializing your paladin in 2h swords only to discover that Holy Avenger is a long sword. Mere words can't express the agony one feels at this very moment. Life wasted.

That is a problem and not something one should just accept.

How the fuck is that a problem? It can easily apply to all non-combat skills, so what's the solution? Cut all non-combat skills? Tie them all to combat (waste not)? Remove all non-combat skills from NPCs? Study a walkthrough before you attempt to play an RPG?

Isn't discovering something awesome? Isn't playing Wiz 8 on your own and discovering what works and what doesn't better than studying guides and asking advice on forums to create a '110% party'?

It's one thing to remove a feature, it's quite another to remove the skill but leave the rest. Why not remove all skills? You don't need the Healing skill, just collect and eat some herbs. You don't need the Sneaking skill, just watch the shadows and NPCs' directions. You don't need the Speech skill just pick a line. Oh wait...

Everyone in the party can benefit from having a healing or sneaking skill or suffer the penalty for not having it. The same can't be said for crafting. Moreover, there will still be non-crafting-skill, ability, and talent requirements to craft certain recipes, so it's not like you'll be able to craft whatever you want.

You're just repeating what Sawyer said. As I said in the previous post, the solution to "you only need a single character with X ability" is to have more non-combat abilities. Play old Avernum games if you're struggling with this concept.

 

[HiddenX]

Durability: I had some fun in Jagged Alliance 2 with jammed pistols …

Crafting can be good, too - best in class: Evil Islands

 

[Infinitron]

Because it takes nothing from people who prefer to focus on combat but it provides an alternative for people who want one, who want to define their characters differently.

It's never that simple, VD. "Why not just add more optionz to give us more freedomz so everybody can be happiez?"

No. There are skill-centric games like yours that are targeted towards that kind of experience of discovering what works and what doesn't, and then there are more "systemically robust" games that are trying to create a different experience, one where are all options are supported to a great degree, at the cost of some perceived freedom of customization. Trying to please both of these crowds is a recipe for a design clusterfuck.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I wouldn't (and never did) ask them to add some skills for the sake of diversity. But they announced a skill with a system behind it and quickly removed the skill because people complained about it. This seems a bit silly, don't you think? Of course, it's their right to do what they think is best, but their reasons seem to be a bit weak. That's all.