Decline Sword Coast Legends Pre-Release Thread

[Bubbles]

Technically speaking +5 may be enough at low levels especially if n-Space uses MMO-style balancing where you can't hit +5 monsters for shit (and I wouldn't put such cheap and dirty tricks past them).

I believe it's actually the opposite, where levels mean relatively little. Everything from the level scaling to the restrictions on DMs has been explicitly put in place to make it easier for players to complete modules, so every monster with a +5 level offset should still be beatable.

 

[Lhynn]

Man, this game is awesome. You keep asuming the worst and it keeps pushing the envolpe and going to shittier places. Its kind of amazing in a morbid way.

 

[HobGoblin42]

...so you can't have level 2 beholders..

 

[DavidBVal]

You know, as a supporter of well-designed and limited scaled content, this makes me embarassed.

Do you even have "level 1" HP in this game?

No idea, probably you start with 200 hp and then gain 1 per level. Or whatever is dictated by an "inclusive" hp policy.

 

[Nekot-The-Brave]

Do you even have "level 1" HP in this game?

No, your mage probably won't be killed when a rat does 4 damage.

 

[Lhynn]

No, your mage probably won't be killed when a rat does 4 damage.

He will if its a lvl 6 rat.

 

[Reinhardt]

Well, dwarf died pretty fast in this video. Like from 2-3 hits.

 

[Saxon1974]

God game sounds pathetic. A shame as its been too long since we got a real d&d crpg. I expected real time combat but the level scaling stuff is just too much. Seems pretty likely now I won't even buy this...and I am a huge d&d fanboy going back 20+ years....what does that entail for this games sales? Are they going to be able to bring in enough newbs from the bioware, diablo style crowd for this to sell well?

 

[Desur]

However, you can give any monster an offset of up to +/- 5 levels.

That makes it (somewhat) better but the game still looks terribly uninspired.

I believe it's actually the opposite, where levels mean relatively little. Everything from the level scaling to the restrictions on DMs has been explicitly put in place to make it easier for players to complete modules, so every monster with a +5 level offset should still be beatable.

That pretty much defeats the entire purpose of leveling - if you can defeat the final boss at level 1 why bother grinding? Especially seeing how boring the combat appears to be.

 

[Bubbles]

That pretty much defeats the entire purpose of leveling - if you can defeat the final boss at level 1 why bother grinding? Especially seeing how boring the combat appears to be.

The official main campaign also has static enemies, so you can still spend a lot of time grinding levels there. However, the released version of the editor doesn't support static levels. I guess the idea is that players who want a static challenge can play the official campaign, while those who want easy fun can play custom content.

 

[Desur]

I guess the idea is that players who want a static challenge can play the official campaign, while those who want easy fun can play custom content.

The official campaign may end up being rather decent but there is no lack of decent single-player RPGs out there and let's face it: the custom content featuring a DM is supposed to be the main selling point of this game. If the DM isn't free to do whatever they feel like then the concept is flawed to begin with. While I can understand why they might want to force level-scaling upon us I still believe having the option to switch it off (an 'advanced' setting, toggling it on would add a tag next to the session's name so that the players can decide whether they want to partake or something) would benefit the game greatly.

 

[InD_ImaginE]

The official main campaign also has static enemies, so you can still spend a lot of time grinding levels there. However, the released version of the editor doesn't support static levels. I guess the idea is that players who want a static challenge can play the official campaign, while those who want easy fun can play custom content.

The fact that static enemies are in the single player campaign make their decision more baffling. Won't the inclusion of OPTIONAL static enemies would only make their target audience bigger? And really, if we are talking an isometric, (loosely) based on D&D rules game with mediocre graphics and writing, a good part of said target audience would be those people who actually liked the earlier isometric D&D games. They are making choice that doesn't make any sense.

 

[Infinitron]

My guess is that they're terrified of anything that might decrease the instant "pick up and play" appeal of their multiplayer mode. Many a Steam game with multiplayer has come out only for the multiplayer scene to instantly die.

So they make dungeon creation as much of a single click operation as possible, without any UI complexities that might put people off ("Man, this is complex/time consuming, let's play something else"). It also eliminates the chance of new players running into dungeons that kill them on Day 1.

 

[ArchAngel]

My guess is that they're terrified of anything that might decrease the instant "pick up and play" appeal of their multiplayer mode. Many a Steam game with multiplayer has come out only for the multiplayer scene to instantly die.

So they make dungeon creation as much of a single click operation as possible, without any UI complexities that might put people off ("Man, this is complex/time consuming, let's play something else"). It also eliminates the chance of new players running into dungeons that kill them on Day 1.

The game is made "By the casuals, for the casuals" so yea, this is how it is.

 

[DavidBVal]

My guess is that they're terrified of anything that might decrease the instant "pick up and play" appeal of their multiplayer mode. Many a Steam game with multiplayer has come out only for the multiplayer scene to instantly die.

So they make dungeon creation as much of a single click operation as possible, without any UI complexities that might put people off ("Man, this is complex/time consuming, let's play something else"). It also eliminates the chance of new players running into dungeons that kill them on Day 1.

In the end, they may still have the same problem if people begin to design content with +5lvl monsters everywhere. Would be fun if it happened, too.

then they implement the "killz all" big button in the middle of the screen.

 

[ArchAngel]

In the end, they may still have the same problem if people begin to design content with +5lvl monsters everywhere. Would be fun if it happened, too.

then they implement the "killz all" big button in the middle of the screen.

The game already lets anyone stabilize anyone during combat in few seconds automatically and that action heals them and brings them back into combat with no penalty. It is worse than Evolve where at least only a dedicated medic could do that.

 

[InD_ImaginE]

The game already lets anyone stabilize anyone during combat in few seconds automatically and that action heals them and brings them back into combat with no penalty. It is worse than Evolve where at least only a dedicated medic could do that.

Honestly, the stabilize mechanics in itself won't make the game horrible IF they actually manage to create challenges for the players so that said mechanic is required. For example DA:I, horrible game that it is, would be reeeeeeaaaalllllly hard to beat on Nightmare without the stabilize mechanic because: 1)Horrible camera 2)Bosses having attacks that nearly OHKO but is really hard to predict because companion AI is stupid and because of said horrible camera 3) The lack of conventional healing (no/little to no heal spells, limited potion)

Now see how two of those reason are technical? This game DON'T HAVE THOSE PROBLEMS. Isometric camera is more tactical and thus easier to observe. From the gameplay video it doen't seems the game to be THAT hard. Their stabilization mechanics only serve to "You know, casuals don't like failure, so we won't make them fail."

 

[getter77]

There's just something about the established classics that might as well be cursed when it comes to projects out of nowhere from random teams.

Dungeons & Dragons Tactics could've been a truly excellent game...but it only came out on the PSP instead of the infinitely better suited PC. At best, a Co8-like team might crop up to hack at it on ppsspp.
There was a Hexen'ish Fighting Fantasy game with the RPG aspects emboldened....but they decided it was better to max out the old Nintendo DS than PC despite their maxing it so hard that, IIRC, they didn't even have system power left to handle background music by and large.

Here with this the last "thing" was what, Daggerdale, and you'd think they'd want something the absolutely eclipses that in every possible way and be on top of really putting this out there as a great game to herald the newest edition of D&D---nope.

 

[stray]

There's just something about the established classics that might as well be cursed when it comes to projects out of nowhere from random teams.

Dungeons & Dragons Tactics could've been a truly excellent game...but it only came out on the PSP instead of the infinitely better suited PC. At best, a Co8-like team might crop up to hack at it on ppsspp.
There was a Hexen'ish Fighting Fantasy game with the RPG aspects emboldened....but they decided it was better to max out the old Nintendo DS than PC despite their maxing it so hard that, IIRC, they didn't even have system power left to handle background music by and large.

Here with this the last "thing" was what, Daggerdale, and you'd think they'd want something the absolutely eclipses that in every possible way and be on top of really putting this out there as a great game to herald the newest edition of D&D---nope.

They're not exactly random afaik. They tried to namedrop being Bioware veterans or something.

Except it seems that they're even worse than the ones who stayed at Bioware.

 

[DavidBVal]

There's just something about the established classics that might as well be cursed when it comes to projects out of nowhere from random teams.

I'll tell you why: programming has changed, random teams are just a reflection of nowadays developers' stock.

In 1981, to be a game programmer, you had to be a genius. Okay, maybe that's exagerating, but most of the competent programmers capable of doing a game, were rather intelligent people, self-taught, that used horribly impaired tools compared to nowadays. There was no "official" way to program a game, and most hardware wasn't actually designed for it; optimization, tweaking, debugging, everything was hard, and undocumented. Not to mention, it was a very small market, and with small profits compared to what the same guy could earn, if he was programming COBOL shit for a bank, which would also be more "respectable". Being a videogame programmer in the 80s didn't really sound cool... it was a kiddies' thing, for many people. So if they were making games, it was probably because they had a passion for it. They were talented(ish) dreamers.

Nowadays, programming is easier than ever. At least to a superficial level, the learning curve to build and even publish a simple application, is extremely gentler than it was before. Anyone that is not seriously mentally-impaired can follow a tutorial and make a calculator application. Sure there's some extraordinary programmers around, but there's also the horde of goons that just learned how to use the shiny tools, drag and drop widgets, and managed not to get too drunk before university tests, so they got a degree that makes them "qualified". For them, videogames is a "career" with a lot of "earning potential". That explains AAA games with memory leaks or absurd requisites... because in the end, the shiny tools have small cracks, and there's always some need to go low level, which these guys simply can't handle.

Now compare a team of old-time developers, to the ones I just described, and tell me if it is surprising that the final outcome is not the same.

Not even considering marketing pressure and other factors, which obviously don't help.

 

[ArchAngel]

Honestly, the stabilize mechanics in itself won't make the game horrible IF they actually manage to create challenges for the players so that said mechanic is required. For example DA:I, horrible game that it is, would be reeeeeeaaaalllllly hard to beat on Nightmare without the stabilize mechanic because: 1)Horrible camera 2)Bosses having attacks that nearly OHKO but is really hard to predict because companion AI is stupid and because of said horrible camera 3) The lack of conventional healing (no/little to no heal spells, limited potion)

Now see how two of those reason are technical? This game DON'T HAVE THOSE PROBLEMS. Isometric camera is more tactical and thus easier to observe. From the gameplay video it doen't seems the game to be THAT hard. Their stabilization mechanics only serve to "You know, casuals don't like failure, so we won't make them fail."

It is terrible because it is one of those things that you design the game around. PoE had you drop and not be part of combat, so did IE games. You had to get a lvl 5 spell to get back up (in case of IE games you didn't also get up after combat). Even in DAO I don't remember any character being a mini healer.
All video or streams I seen had players drop in tougher battles and get raised during combats that lasted way too long and basically counted on characters dropping and being raised during it..

 

[DavidBVal]

Well, isn't stabilizing an actual thing in DnD 5e? Let me check the rulebook.

Okay, Stabilizing is very different in this game. Stabilization, the way it works is:

- Player character falls to the ground, starts making death saving throws.
- Another player character moves to them, makes a Wisdom Check(Above a ten) to stabilize
- Player is no longer making death saving throws, but is still unconcious. If attacked, begins making death saving throws.

So basically, it's not a "touch them and they're fully healed" bullshit. This seems more like AAA garbage where you an instarevive dead players like in DA:I.

Why do they keep claiming this game is faithful to 5e?

Agreeing on the fact that this game sounds like AAA garbage, I'll play a little the devil's advocate. I don't know 5ed, though, but I know all the others.

In a PnP game, you won't fight dozens upon dozens of encounters in the same day, so some healing enhacements are expected in a CRPG. Also, in a PnP game, insta-death effects tend to be used fairly by the DM, often giving the players alternatives to face them. Something that won't happen in a CRPG. Tweaks like this are to be expected, at least to some degree.

 

[DavidBVal]

Okay but, its literally a completely different mechanic. I'm not saying that the mechanic translates flawlessly into a RTWP game, but this is actually insulting. If it has to be a revive, how about you have a system where stabilizing someone costs healer's kits, and stores them health by rolling their hit die together. Then, only you lose your healer's kits, you only get revived 1hp. Thusly, you have something of resource management. You can buy greater healer's kits which restore your health by hit die + con modifier and then you can have perfect healer kits that restore you rolling hit die, re-rolling 1s and 2s, and con modifier.
Not just "nah bro get up here's max hp"

Absolutely! they implemented it horribly.

 

[Bubbles]

Somebody is compiling the skill tree here as a treat for all you hardcore D&D fans.

 

[Infinitron]

Somebody is compiling the skill tree here as a treat for all you hardcore D&D fans.

No access. How much did you pay for this game, Bubbles??