[Power of classes (Realism vs. Filling unlimited power)]

The best games I played were those without redicolous pwoer levels or thosue without any leveling at all. There's your perfect balance right there.

And the best game I played were those where the players begin with immense personal power and must struggle to decide how to effectively leverage that power to better the world, so... Duelling anecdotes, yaaaaay!

 

Done right, power progression is a form of character progression.

[Level Cap]

That was an EXCELLENT example and point, 8D. I'm in mild awe right now.

 

...

 

Also, I know you're not saying that, in a cRPG, NO combat encounters need to challenge the prowess of the player characters. I just also find argument intellectually stimulating, heh. ^_^

Well thank 'ee for the compliment good sir, but alas I think there will be no further stimulation. At this point, what you are saying is not in the least disagreeable to me, and I must consider our opinions reconciled.

[Level Cap]

True. However, just how easy can you let the enemies get before it stops providing any benefit and starts being pointless? Also, unless you adhere to the restriction I mentioned above, how satisfying would it be to go "Oh no, this next chapter in the story is presenting quite the dilemma! If I don't stop these 300 Goblins, this town will be decimated! *Casts Firestorm* Oh, look at that... they all died instantly." While the pro is that it allows you to feel powerful, there's obviously a reasonable limit to that. If you walked into a room, and all the enemies instantly died, how much satisfaction would you get from literally expending no effort to kill them? All things in moderation,

As far as Project: Eternity goes, I agree - there are degrees.

 

That said.

 

In a a general sense, I disagree. It is possible to take the situation you propose, and tell an engaging story with it (albeit probably not the kind of story appropriate to Project: Eternity.)

 

If you're familiar with a Pen & Paper RPG called Exalted, you might recognize where I'm going with this. Essentially, a fight doesn't have to be challenging to be part of an interesting story - if the rest of the story is on board with the assumption that "this fight will not be challenging". It helps to put a lot more focus on the 'grand scheme of things' concerns that we would traditionally consider the aftermath.

 

So, let's say you have your story of three hundred goblins reaving through the countryside. The party rolls up, wipes out the army with a brief bout of cataclysmic spellfire. The army is blasted to shreds, its few survivors routed and fleeing. The townships fall over themselves to celebrate your name. Local politicians try to contract the party to leverage similar power on other problems - problems which are maybe not quite so cut-and-dry, morally speaking. Maybe a particularly black-hearted aristocrat tries to strong-arm the party into working for him - people like that can always find ways to bend those who think themselves mighty over a barrel. A loved one held hostage, a slow-acting poison in the wine-glass to which only they hold the antidote, simple lies and half-truths...

 

Alternatively/additionally, a week later, goblin refugees start streaming into town. Women and children, starving and sick. That 'army' that was reaving the countryside? That was every able-bodied goblin, out in the world, trying to plunder enough food for their family to eat this month, because their crops have failed (possibly ruined by Something Worse).

 

The townships are reluctant to take in the families of the ugly, stunted creatures who not a week past were cutting a swathe through the countryside. Still, they're mostly good people - they could be convinced. If somebody tried to convince them. Somebody who, say, feels responsible that hundreds of sentients are starving, filthy and driven to begging for succour from their enemies.

 

But this creates further problems, because the townships (still recovering from the goblin raids, mind you) don't have enough food to tend to all these people. Hm. How to solve that?

 

In summary: "A challenge of non-trivial difficulty" is one route to an engaging story, but it is not the only one.

 

I'm not suggesting Project: Eternity take a leaf out of Exalted's book in this, mind you. I just find argument intellectually stimulating

The real issue here is how to address that power difference to achieve the best sense of progression while still allowing other affected mechanics to flourish.

Agreed.

[Outlandish Weapon and Armour Ideas]

I love sword canes as much as the next guy, but they sound a bit too top-hat-and-monocle for this period, methinks.

If I can't waltz through a dungeon in a top hat and monocle, life has no meaning.

[Outlandish Weapon and Armour Ideas]

 

Yes, muskets not automatics, I know, but that's what speed enchantments are for.

[Level scaling and its misuse]

Ah well. I always did like the sidequests more

[Level Cap]

the mid level part of the BG series was the good part. Around level 12-14, when you had enough power to feel like a badass, but there were still enemies to realistically challenge you. Fighting endless level 25 grunts in throne of bhaal was terrible.

Disagree completely. I played Baldur's Gate 2 back when it first came out, went back sometime after, had riotously good fun with both. I like the epic stuff.

I don't mind a level cap, but please don't do the monster scaling stuff as with Bethesda's Oblivion, and a bunch of other games.

Yes. Just, please, yes. I loathe level scaling. I avoid it like the plague.

I'm all for scaling, really. I just don't like how it's often done. Problems arise when you're level 10 and have 1,000 hitpoints and do 125 damage, but little Level 2 Goblins still have 20 hitpoints and deal 7 damage (not including your armor's damage reduction). At that point, the Goblins are providing literally no combat challenge.

And this is why I avoid level scaling, because that? The situation you describe? That's not a problem to me. That sounds like a good time. There's something immensely, viscerally satisfying about going back to an early foe that gave you great frustration at the time and stomping them flat because you're five or six levels above his weight class now. I liked the trash encounters in BG2, where you'd travel through Athkatla and get ambushed by bandits, then wipe them out in one or two rounds. It's immensely empowering, because it shows you how far you've come.

 

It means that, when my character levels up, it means something. It means I am not simply maintaining a shinier kind of parity with the world. It means there are challenges out there which I have surpassed.

 

Not every fight has to be an uphill hundred-to-one odds hail mary miracle victory to be a good time, you know.

[What is bad about the gameplay ASIDE from people trying to play this like a shooter?]

One thing I actually really like about AP is that you had to make actual choices and couldn't save everyone/everything.

 

Having said that, your options are not bad ideas.

 

 

I would have actually really enjoyed it if what you described was possible due to being a veteran start

 

Oh, I completely agree. Sometimes, that kind of thing really works- But only if it's done right. It needs to be clear that these are your only choices. Otherwise, people will point out "hey, why don't you just..."

 

 

In this case, enforcing those choices isn't that difficult. You decide to save Madison? Okay, you warned the museum, and faked some orders from on-high so they believe you. You even sent the guards in to disarm the bombs while you save the girl- unfortunately, the guards failed, the bombs went off and Halbech got its bodies. A lot less than they would've liked, but a terrorist act still went off in a major European city.

 

You decide to disarm the bombs? Marb urg doesn't bring Madison along, and just has her shot the moment you make your choice. Her body turns up in the after-action news reports- maybe he even plays her final moments for you over the comms.

 

 

The point is, I don't disagree with this kind of choice, but it needs to be done without forcing the player into a Stupidity Is The Only Option situation. There's more than one instance of this, mind; I'm just using the Rome finale as an example. Still, Alpha Protocol avoids this more than most. It's just a shame they turn up at all.

[What is bad about the gameplay ASIDE from people trying to play this like a shooter?]

So far, my only real gripe with AP is the same gripe I have with most RPG's with a propensity for making you decide between two choices: The lack of ability to take a third option. Isn't that what heroism is all about? Defiance of the odds?

 

Admittedly, AP is better than most due to the lack of an arbitrary karma bar (praise be!), but it still annoys me at times.

 

As an example, the Rome finale.

 

The non-spoilers version; whichever option you take, I can think of a few extra actions you could take to minimize the damage of the other outcome, or even achieve both.

 

The spoiler version...

 

 

If you decide to save Madison... You had, at least, several hours before embarking on this mission, and you couldn't have Mina call ahead to have the museum evacuated? Maybe forge some orders from on-high to make sure? Heck, not long before making that choice, you passed some security guards and helped them out in a gunfight. Get THEM to start evacuating the building. Okay, it wouldn't actually thwart Halbech, but it would sure as hell mitigate the damage!

 

If you decide to disarm the bombs? This wouldn't be a complaint if Marburg had just, say, turned up with a photo of Madison's corpse, or called his men in front of Thorton with orders to shoot... But no. He insists on dragging Madison in front of you, letting her go, taking an agonizingly long pause, and then shooting her. Thorton, meanwhile, does absolutely squat all throughout this.

 

Why isn't there an option to interrupt Marburg with a bullet to the face between Madison being let go and Marburg shooting her? For that matter, how about instead of demanding "Let her go!" like a fool, Thorton shoots both guards in the face and pins Marburg down with gunfire while Madison runs for it? You could tie it to whether the player has Chain Shot, if need be.

 

 

Now, these instances of no third options are rarer in Alpha Protocol than others, but unfortunately, that rarity just means they're all the more glaring when they do turn up.

[ID Jibril Al-Bara at the Chateau glitch. PLEASE HELP!!!]

Much obliged to ye, sir.

[ID Jibril Al-Bara at the Chateau glitch. PLEASE HELP!!!]

Argh. I have the same problem, and I'd be grateful to anybody who can help.

 

20100611175417.sav (think that should work)

 

Thanks in advance. Is there any word on when we can expect this to get patched?