Interview Vault Dweller interviewed about The New World and more at GoHa.Ru

[l3loodAngel]

Gaelius aasasination quests in palace with thieves IIRC. It requires many skill points and a wide array of skills so if the player does not save a ton of points he might be easily screwed. And there were at least few more. I managed to get around them with my knowledge, but gaining it takes time.

The main issue is that it requires Impersonate 4 to start the quest. However, Cyrus can train you if you tell him you aren't sure you can get past the guards and 4 is a fairly low skill level. Once you are in, you can sneak/steal fairly easily. The highest check is 7, I believe, and that's for killing the Legatus with a Critical Strike, which gets you the gold badge and bypasses the entire east wing (otherwise you steal a silver badge and go through the east wing looking for a gold badge or sneak through the guards' quarters - requires sneak 6). If I recall correctly, the quest accommodates pure thieves, talker-thieves, and assassin-thieves. I'm not saying the design is perfect but I don't think it was a dead end.

As I remember I was combat heavy and had something +60 points saved and that saved my ass. Other than that I would have had to reload very early save.

Per use means that builds will have 0 flexibility, meaning that after few initial combats/solutions through talking your character will only be capable of fighting or talking.

Our aim is to support 'hybrids' not force you to play a specialist. It's fairly easy to do with any 'increase by use' system.

That's exactly what it's going to do. For example a quest which is finished by melee combat raises character's combat stats. Thus, after few quests a character who solved them by combat will be handicapped with non-combat approach assuming the quest requirements increase quest to quest. If it increases all the stats then it actually works as removing all stats all together and makes player input irrelevant.

Saving points and changing action plan will be out of the question. The game will be completely railroaded and VD will return to old system, because of the fucking outcry...

There is always a fucking ourcry about this or that. For the record, I want to experiment with an 'increase by use' system not because people complained but because I think it fits our design better.

I wish you luck, however, if you remove all the power and all the choices from the players no-one is going to end up happy. BTW You have not seen outcry like that... It makes all builds irrelevant, all player input irrelevant etc.

 

[l3loodAngel]

I always knew you were a retard.

Then why are you talking to me?

I am a masochist.

First of all if you remove player choice on point distribution you take away all the player freedom. You don't even give an illusion of freedom. That's basic psychology - people despise when someone takes their freedom away. Like people in AOD complain that they don't have enough freedom in the form of restrictive builds and content. That means a lot of people will be upset with the so called system. Then this will happen:
Per use means that builds will have 0 flexibility, meaning that after few initial combats/solutions through talking your character will only be capable of fighting or talking. Saving points and changing action plan will be out of the question. The game will be completely railroaded and VD will return to old system, because of the fucking outcry...

I did not make those system design changes, VD did. Either call him a retard, or maybe, like Lurker King said, stop crying and realize that he did this for a reason.

Sure, the new system will have its flaws, notably it might not be obvious to learn to do new things later in the game, like you said. But let's face it, you can't suddenly become a master manipulator late in AoD; previous choices will have blocked off many diplomatic avenues, and a lot of your skill points will have already been commited. Also, in The New World you'll have a party to diversify.

And? So your entire party solves quests by brute force and late game nobody can talk to anybody for shit? Kinda of a big flaw. No previous choices did not block many avenues if you have the right tools. That's the point of many uber builds. Have a character that can fight and can manipulate people with talking.

 

[HeatEXTEND]

If it helps avoid having to re-roll a character a few acts into the game because you assigned points improperly

That's how every good crpg starts

 

[Vault Dweller]

Our aim is to support 'hybrids' not force you to play a specialist. It's fairly easy to do with any 'increase by use' system.

That's exactly what it's going to do. For example a quest which is finished by melee combat raises character's combat stats. Thus, after few quests a character who solved them by combat will be handicapped with non-combat approach assuming the quest requirements increase quest to quest.

First, not all quests can be solved by combat (just like not all quests can be solved by diplomacy or stealth). Second, let's say you have 10 quests in the starting town. Let's assume that all 10 quests can be solved any way you want. If you solve all 10 quests by killing things, i.e. playing a melee specialist, then that's the character you want to play and it's not me who forced you to play it this way. We move the choice from "how you want to distribute your points?" to "how you want to handle quests?".

 

[HeatEXTEND]

That's exactly what it's going to do.

mellee increases intimidate somewhat
shooting/throwing increases perception by a margin
etc. etc.
have everything in its corner affect everything around it in some way

This took 5 seconds, I'm sure ITS gave it a bit more thought than that.

 

[Lurker King]

And? So your entire party solves quests by brute force and late game nobody can talk to anybody for shit? Kinda of a big flaw. No previous choices did not block many avenues if you have the right tools.

So you want to invest most of your energy killing things and you want to be magically proficiently at talking afterwards because the developer should allow every single flight of fancy you may have, even if this means giving skill points out your own ass and ignoring logic? If that egocentric manchild way of seeing things is what you call it freedom, I think it should be restricted by all kinds of obstacles and stat requirements, because it sounds like utter idiocy and I don't the gameworld to be a retarded theme park for teenager egotistical power fantasy.

That's the point of many broken builds

Fixed.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

It’s about not being bothered by stats.

It's really not. It's just that playing anything other than a combat-oriented character in AoD is simply not that entertaining. Put as much skill as you need, play to the point when you fail the test, reload. The only thing that's left is trying to predict which skills will you need at a specific point in the game, which isn't really that engaging. I think I've already told you that but people generally don't mind stats mattering or hard skill checks as long as they are connected to something a bit more engaging. It doesn't even has to be combat. Financial simulator, castle management, racing, whatever. CYOA is fine if it supports anything else, but it's just too dry on it's own for most people, myself included.

So you want to invest most of your energy killing things and you want to be magically proficiently at talking afterwards because the developer should allow every single flight of fancy you may have, even if this means giving skill points out your own ass and ignoring logic?

I wouldn't call AoD too logical compared to other RPGs. My typical talker-character in AoD could pretty much talk himself-out from any situation and never had to defend himself once. How likely it is to travel through a harsh post-apocalyptic world and never encounter anyone who will try to kill you no matter how well you talk? Also, there's really no reason to be this upset.

 

[hellbent]

If it helps avoid having to re-roll a character a few acts into the game because you assigned points improperly

That's how every good crpg starts

Heh, that is a good point, too. Good ones definitely motivate you to re-spec and start over so you can obtain more satisfying resolutions to quests, faceroll opponents more easily, and try getting around obstacles in different ways. Bad ones make you re-spec and restart because the progression mechanics are boned to the point where you simply can't progress without using one of a few select character types.

 

[l3loodAngel]

And? So your entire party solves quests by brute force and late game nobody can talk to anybody for shit? Kinda of a big flaw. No previous choices did not block many avenues if you have the right tools.

So you want to invest most of your energy killing things and you want to be magically proficiently at talking afterwards because the developer should allow every single flight of fancy you may have, even if this means giving skill points out your own ass and ignoring logic? If that egocentric manchild way of seeing things is what you call it freedom, I think it should be restricted by all kinds of obstacles and stat requirements, because it sounds like utter idiocy and I don't the gameworld to be a retarded theme park for teenager egotistical power fantasy.

That's the point of many broken builds

Fixed.

No I want my character to eat, crap and do dishes. FFS I play games to forget about my life not live another where I cook dinner and help to clean flat. I will repeat myself again. It can be seen analitically that such decisions that reward past play style with future quest solutions will get you into a lot of trouble.

If you think that your point of view in a forum full of man children who refuse to grow up makes you more mature it is even more pathic than it sounds.

 

[l3loodAngel]

That's exactly what it's going to do.

mellee increases intimidate somewhat
shooting/throwing increases perception by a margin
etc. etc.
have everything in its corner affect everything around it in some way

This took 5 seconds, I'm sure ITS gave it a bit more thought than that.

Just as much as buttsex makes you understand style, write music or learn proper arrangement of accessories. It took me even less than 5 seconds and made me an idea machine.

 

[Lurker King]

It's really not. It's just that playing anything other than a combat-oriented character in AoD is simply not that entertaining. Put as much skill as you need, play to the point when you fail the test, reload. The only thing that's left is trying to predict which skills will you need at a specific point in the game, which isn't really that engaging. I think I've already told you that but people generally don't mind stats mattering or hard skill checks as long as they are connected to something a bit more engaging. It doesn't even has to be combat. Financial simulator, castle management, racing, whatever. CYOA is fine if it supports anything else, but it's just too dry on it's own for most people, myself included.

I don't think that anyone will dispute that choices in dialogues are a much more passive and simplistic type of gameplay than combat. This was always the case, because talking is a more passive activity and it is harder to emulate. Besides, most developers never cared much about choices. The FOs are a fantastic improvement in that aspect, and other games made some half-assed forays in that area. If AoD can be accused of anything, is of taking these developments to its natural limits. Now, while selecting your choices maybe not be as engaging as combat, it is important because it give us an ability to interact to the game world and the course of events. This is rewarding in itself because we want the ability to affect the events by talking and makes the game world more alive and interesting. Conversation is as natural as breathing. If you can’t make a choice associated with it in a role-playing game, something is missing.

I wouldn't call AoD too logical compared to other RPGs. My typical talker-character in AoD could pretty much talk himself-out from any situation and never had to defend himself once. How likely it is to travel through a harsh post-apocalyptic world and never encounter anyone who will try to kill you no matter how well you talk? Also, there's really no reason to be this upset.

Logic is one thing, plausibility is another. You are arguing that is not plausible or believable because a pure talker wouldn’t be able to do that in the real world. But you need to consider the amount of skills to pull that off and how many people would be able to achieve so higher levels in real life. Not many. I think that Vault Dweller actually mentioned some examples of actual people who were able to pull that off in the real world, but I don’t have the link here. It’s not easy and most people won't even come close, but it is not impossible.

No I want my character to eat, crap and do dishes. FFS I play games to forget about my life not live another where I cook dinner and help to clean flat. I will repeat myself again. It can be seen analitically that such decisions that reward past play style with future quest solutions will get you into a lot of trouble.

So let’s remove the traditional stats and skills because games are not real life. STR, PER and INT can be replaced by uber ability 1, 2 and 3. Let’s also remove the character model of a human being and put an amorphous figure, because fuck it. cRPGs have an intrinsic simulationist vocation stamped on character building, which is an abstraction intended to simulate individuals traits and abilities in a fictitious world. If you adopt a more coherent approach with such traits and abilities, the game world is more interesting and believable. If you don’t, nothing really matters and this betrays the natural vocation of the system. You are also confusing being mundane with having inner logic according to the laws of a fictitious world. I don’t want my fiction filled with holes and inconsistencies because the audience can’t tolerate any kind of frustration when they are not doing adult stuff in the real world.

 

[HeatEXTEND]

If it helps avoid having to re-roll a character a few acts into the game because you assigned points improperly

That's how every good crpg starts

Heh, that is a good point, too. Good ones definitely motivate you to re-spec and start over so you can obtain more satisfying resolutions to quests, faceroll opponents more easily, and try getting around obstacles in different ways. Bad ones make you re-spec and restart because the progression mechanics are boned to the point where you simply can't progress without using one of a few select character types.

Agreed.

 

[HeatEXTEND]

It’s about not being bothered by stats.

It's really not. It's just that playing anything other than a combat-oriented character in AoD is simply not that entertaining.

Uh huh.

 

[Lurker King]

I wouldn't call AoD too logical compared to other RPGs. My typical talker-character in AoD could pretty much talk himself-out from any situation and never had to defend himself once. How likely it is to travel through a harsh post-apocalyptic world and never encounter anyone who will try to kill you no matter how well you talk? Also, there's really no reason to be this upset.

Vault Dweller's examples of diplomatic playtroughs in RL

let's use Marco Polo as an example. Marco decided to LARP old-school. He formed a small 3-man party (I can only assume that they were fighter, mage, and thief) and decided to go adventuring all the way to China. Back in those days people were still taking their role-playing seriously.

He had received gifts for the Great Khan from Pope Gregory X and travelled 5,600 (!) miles of "bandit-ridden" roads, passing through Armenia, Persia, Afghanistan, and finally arriving to China 3.5 years later and delivering the Pope's gifts to the Khan. If Marco managed to avoid the bandits, ninjas, and pirates for 3.5 years and deliver the valuable gifts, we shall assume that dealing with RPG bandits in non-combat ways is more than possible.

Anyway, the story gets better and suggests a great way to handle hostile encounters in RPGs. Kublai Khan gave Marco a golden tablet, which had the Khan's seal and stated "Fuck not least you be fucked with!". Well, actually it said, "By the strength of the eternal Heaven, holy be the Khan's name. Let him that pays him not reverence be killed.", but that's pretty much the same thing. Needless to say, the magic tablet helped Marco to arrive back to Venice safely and bring back a fortune after serving the Khan for 17 years.

(...)

In 1815 Napoleon Bonaparte, an exiled French emperor, landed near Cannes with 600 soldiers and started moving toward the capital. Near Grenoble he was stopped by the 5th Regiment. Napoleon stepped forward and using nothing but his charisma, persuasion, and dramatic effects convinced the soldiers to join him. A day later the 7th Regiment failed their roll against Napoleon’s maxed out Charisma. Marshal Ney promised Louis XVIII to bring Napoleon in an iron cage, but the power of Napoleon’s personality was too great and Ney joined his side, bringing in 6,000 soldiers. Without firing a shot (!), Napoleon took over a country and gained a 340,000 (regular soldiers and volunteers) army.

His progress (very RPG-like) could be tracked by the French newspaper Moniteur’s headlines:

March 10: The Corsican ogre has landed at Cape Juan.
March 11: The tiger is in Gap. Troops are on their way and will stop him. He will end his miserable adventure as a homeless refugee in the mountains.
March 12: The monster succeeded in proceeding to Grenoble.
March 13: The tyrant is now in Lyon. Horror has caught the people.
March 18: The usurper is some days’ march distant from Paris.
March 19: Bonaparte approaches in a hurry, but he will not succeed in advancing to Paris.
March 20: Napoleon will be in Paris tomorrow.
March 21: Emperor Napoleon is in Fontainebleau.
March 22: Yesterday evening His Majesty celebrated his arrival in Paris. The jubilation cannot be described.

From ogre to His Majesty in 12 days. Not bad at all.

(...)

Sir Richard Francis Burton - the 19th century explorer, linguist, ninja-cartographer, undercover intelligence officer, and swordsman. He spoke 25 languages (40 if you count dialects) flawlessly (can you imagine it? 25 languages! That’s what happens, kids, when you don’t treat your INT as a dump stat) and was able to impersonate native speakers in Africa, Asia, and South America. He was the first westerner who infiltrated Mecca disguised as an Afghani physician. If he were discovered, he would have been immediately executed.

Just think about it. An Englishman was able to enter the holy Muslim city, maintain his disguise all the time, demonstrate an understanding and familiarity with Islamic rituals (asking “what do we do now, guys?” was kind of out of the question), behave like a Middle East man (mannerism, etiquette, reaction) without raising suspicions, study everything and leave to write a book about it.

Anyway...

Next step - the forbidden Muslim city of Harar in Somaly. All non-believers who had entered Harar before Burton had been executed, but he manages to go in, party with the locals like it's 1995, and leave alive AGAIN. Quite a feat.

Imagine infiltrating a town like that in an RPG. Combat is not an option for obvious reasons. You rely only on your knowledge, your “soft” skills and abilities. I’d definitely tap that.

 

[Iznaliu]

I don't think that anyone will dispute that choices in dialogues are a much more passive and simplistic type of gameplay than combat. This was always the case, because talking is a more passive activity and it is harder to emulate

You could apply a pseudo-combat model to talking.

 

[Commissar Draco]

Obviously Marco Polo maxed his LUCK attribute too but normally merchants, diplomats, traveling priests*, princesses and other spies had dedicated body guard detail or traveled as part of heavily escorted merchant caravans exempted from local thief guild/robber barons attention by fat bribes or both. Its not far fetched that our Merchant PC is using Guild help in moving between towns; and frankly speaking the way IG usually** deals with robbers ensures roads being much safer than German or Swedish streets. If you still too boneheaded to enter slums despite being warned to not do so on the other hand...

*Priests/monks had class immunity to being robbed and assaulted too.

** Unless they're doing their black ops business aimed against rival houses.

 

[Jaedar]

There is always a fucking ourcry about this or that. For the record, I want to experiment with an 'increase by use' system not because people complained but because I think it fits our design better.

Are we, the public, going to get a demo of an early act to try it provide feedback, similarly to Teron demo? Might be too early to commit to, but don't worry, I won't hold you to your answer if you do

 

[Vault Dweller]

There is always a fucking ourcry about this or that. For the record, I want to experiment with an 'increase by use' system not because people complained but because I think it fits our design better.

Are we, the public, going to get a demo of an early act to try it provide feedback, similarly to Teron demo? Might be too early to commit to, but don't worry, I won't hold you to your answer if you do

Yes. Feedback is very important to us, so we'll follow the established template: combat demo, full demo, early access with 50% of the game until we hit 100%, then release.

 

[Lurker King]

I don't think that anyone will dispute that choices in dialogues are a much more passive and simplistic type of gameplay than combat. This was always the case, because talking is a more passive activity and it is harder to emulate

You could apply a pseudo-combat model to talking.

Easier said than done. I said something similar on this thread:

I was thinking about the problem of passivity with dialogue skills. Maybe the problem could be solved by creating an intricate system that simulates what happens with combat skills. If you are a powerful fighter, you can still die by choosing the wrong types of attack or if you are bad positioned. The same thing could happen with dialogue skills. You can have some idea of what a NPC thinks and need to react accordingly. The system would be based on this premise. Instead of having the option of using “Persuasion”, you could use different types of “Persuasion” for different moments in the dialogue, for instance, “Emphatic persuasion”, “Aggressive persuasion”, “Arrogant persuasion”, etc. The player would have to invest SPs only in “Persuasion” to use these different variants of persuasion, in the same way that the player could invest only in “Axe” in order to use different types of attack.

Another suggestion is to make the NPCs moods vary in accord with the time of the day, their occupations, etc. The same NPC could be annoyed if approached in the morning, or if he is busy talking with someone else, but welcoming later on, or alone. You could even provide crossed conversations with two NPCs that offered more dialogue options. A conversation between three individuals could make your job of convincing the other part harder, but could unlock new opportunities too. The traditional backgrounds (race, etc.) could provide more opportunities too. If you are from a group in the ship with poor hygiene, NPCs from other groups will treat you differently. The stats and additional feats could provide the player with tips about the NPCs moods, etc. – remember “Empathy” in FO2.

However, I don't think that will ever be the same thing:

I’m still not convinced how this improved system is supposed to fixed the passivity of dialogues. It can make any dialogue related activity in cRPGs much better, but will not be as active as combat. Just consider how many options a player has in one turn using one single character: you can heal, you can boost your energy, you can attack, you have different ways of attack, or combos with different items, you can change weapons, you can position your character, you have to consider every single variable about the combat scenario, etc. No matter how detailed a dialogue system is, it will never be anything remotely similar to a combat system. Let’s not kid ourselves. To think that one could be similar to the other is a pipe dream.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

Lurker King
According to what I found Marco Polo didn't manage to avoid all combat encounters:

In 1271, Niccolò, Maffeo and Marco Polo embarked on their voyage to fulfil Kublai's request. They sailed to Acre, and then rode on camels to the Persian port of Hormuz. The Polos wanted to sail straight into China, but the ships there were not seaworthy, so they continued overland through the Silk Road, until reaching Kublai's summer palace in Shangdu, near present-day Zhangjiakou. In one instance during their trip, the Polos joined a caravan of travelling merchants whom they crossed paths with. Unfortunately, the party was soon attacked by bandits, who used the cover of a sandstorm to ambush them. The Polos managed to fight and escape through a nearby town, but many members of the caravan were killed or enslaved.[64]

Guess streetwise didn't help him with those, huh? I'm not saying that diplomat-playthroughs are illogical. I'm saying that finishing adventures on bullshit-alone is a bit silly.

Regarding talking-like-combat. Anything more than just clicking the right option would make talker play-through more engaging.

 

[Iznaliu]

Lurker King
According to what I found Marco Polo didn't manage to avoid all combat encounters:

In 1271, Niccolò, Maffeo and Marco Polo embarked on their voyage to fulfil Kublai's request. They sailed to Acre, and then rode on camels to the Persian port of Hormuz. The Polos wanted to sail straight into China, but the ships there were not seaworthy, so they continued overland through the Silk Road, until reaching Kublai's summer palace in Shangdu, near present-day Zhangjiakou. In one instance during their trip, the Polos joined a caravan of travelling merchants whom they crossed paths with. Unfortunately, the party was soon attacked by bandits, who used the cover of a sandstorm to ambush them. The Polos managed to fight and escape through a nearby town, but many members of the caravan were killed or enslaved.[64]

Guess streetwise didn't help him with those, huh? I'm not saying that diplomat-playthroughs are illogical. I'm saying that finishing adventures on bullshit-alone is a bit silly.

Regarding talking-like-combat. Anything more than just clicking the right option would make talker play-through more engaging.

Obviously pro-combat propaganda.

 

[empi]

I haven't followed new world news very closely. How similair to AoD is it going to be gameplay wise? Is it going to be C&C/CYOA focussed again?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Yes, except for there will be a proper stealth system.

 

[Iznaliu]

Yes, except for there will be a proper stealth system.

I imagine the differences in the character system, especially party-based gameplay, will have an effect.