Ieo

Patrols: Sometimes called “pathers” or “pats,” these are lightly scripted enemies in that they walk a set circuit around a particular area. For example, a bandit camp may have two sets of patrols, two guards each, that walk a circle in opposite directions, on the outer edge of the camp; depending on which entry point the player attempts to control and timing (maybe you’re surprised in the middle of combat by a patrol that comes from behind), this would add a tactical layer. The AI may also be altered in that one guard may run away to warn the rest of the camp (perhaps after injury) or automatically call the nearest group of their allies within a certain range. Note that this setup does encourage “pulling,” not “kiting” (a term used incorrectly in the other thread), but I don’t consider pulling a bad thing at all unless the game mechanics are poorly designed to allow pulling individuals on the fog of war edge away from their groups--good pulling mechanics and strategy should involve discrete groups. Other possibilities include heightened senses (to potentially spot stealthy players); multiple, more complex routes that defy easy memorization; different speeds; randomly generated patrols per session or game (e.g. an enemy base has three possible patrol patterns, A-B-C, but in this game you only see B-C). The IE games didn’t make much use of patrols in the classical sense that I remember; enemies may randomly wander around a very small area, but this is not true patrol behavior. The closest analogue I can think of in the IE games would be the guards walking up and down the main “road” of Nashkel, but those are player-side. I wonder if this sort of thing is limited by the engine or something; admittedly I only remember experiencing patrol behaviors in MMOs, but the mechanic’s value is independent of multiplayer and pause ability, so I think this could be reasonably ported. I’d love to see real (enemy) patrols in PE if possible; that would make each combat encounter a bit more unique. This could even be finessed in difficulty settings. Respawns: I have mixed feelings about this kind of mechanic. Simply, a respawn is the same type of enemy/creature (or from a limited pool of cycling creatures) reappearing in the same spot after a certain amount of time. In MMOs, the mechanic is required for so many players, but there are different levels of respawning depending on area (e.g. slower respawns in dungeons, etc.). This doesn’t work so well in a non-persistent SP world like the IE games because it doesn’t work for narrative play--if you clear out a dungeon, it should stay cleared--yet there are a couple places where respawns happened in BG1, and it was poorly implemented: e.g. Cloakwood (the map with the spiders and traps). Spiders would respawn the moment you moved away and covered the spot with the fog of war. Are the randomly generated enemy spawns when you rest in the wilderness or in dungeons “respawns”? I wouldn’t classify them as such, nor the random encounters between map travel in BG. The primary difference between these BG encounters and respawns are that the latter are far less dependent on an RNG check (or not at all). If there were respawns in PE, they would have to be used very sparingly and in situations that make some sense. The Cloakwood spiders made some sense in that the critters could come in from outlying wilderness, but the implementation should have used map-level respawns or even per login session instead of the fog of war (way overkill). Nor should respawns be used for sentient recruit situations (e.g. enemy base) where they’d have a limited number of soldiers. Critters in dungeons (e.g. undead) might make sense, but again, this mechanic would have to be used sparingly if at all. Randomized or pool spawn points: These did not exist much at all in the IE games (the Modron Maze in PS:T), but I think would allow some variety (tactical or not) in PE if possible. Example of randomized spawn points--a dungeon boss may be in one of three rooms; this could add a tactical layer depending on the layout of the room, and the spawn location itself may be determined in each new game or per session. Pool spawns can end up being cosmetic only or significantly affect gameplay--basically the RNG will determine the type and sometimes number of enemy that spawns in a set location; I believe this sort of thing is already part of one of the difficulty modes, though, so I won’t go into it. Randomized spawn points are a bit more interesting to me anyway, though this would have to be used sparingly as well, as the IE games had static encounters and thus a certain overall "feel" should be retained.

I think the loot issue is legitimate (especially considering that the avatars are going to have better graphical fidelity than the IE games--who else got that evil dwarf in BG1 only to swipe his nice golden helm?). It may be easier to stick with colors rather than gear sets, like different hair and skin colors, so forth.

That's definitely something I appreciated in BG1; the "epic" stuff was not only truly rare/expensive, but they weren't overly better than the regular stuff. Plate mail +1, so cool! Since PE is supposed to be the first in a proper franchise, my hope is that the equipment approach is more "ordinay" similarly to BG1. But we know there are going to be a whole bunch of "epic" player-designed stuff, so I have to wonder... Also, some people are comparing BG1 against BG2 and saying the latter is railroaded--no, DA:O was truly railroaded. The biggest difference between BG2 and the likes of DA:O is that in the former, nearly all the map areas outside of Athkatla proper (mainland above ground) were optional side quests--just deeper, longer-running and divergent side quests with initial ungating quests, but still optional for exploration nonetheless. I don't remember optional exploration maps at all in DA:O besides companion quests because there were so few side quests in general. So something between BG1 (low-density dialogue encounters lacking any sense or depth) and BG2 (deeper side content but no low-density exploration) would certainly be the best of both worlds for me.

"We're going to begin alpha testing, and private invitations will be sent out shortly. Please be aware that your participation and even an invitation itself is covered completely by a nondisclosure agreement." *Ieo receives an alpha testing invite* <---What I'm looking forward to. (Ha!) Oh, and more art in the original Sagani IWD-painted style, pleeeeaaase.

And only when they're the Cipher class.

*sigh* I must admit that this article does not actually fill me with joy, even despite my long-standing love affair with PS:T. I immediately thought of Dragon Age: Origins, which wasn't even marketed as a sequel but as a "successor," one step removed. Yet it was not the successor to Baldur's Gate by a long shot, while all the marketing, interviews, and what-have-you always mentioned the tandem relation. Thus, all I see are red flags, which increases my suspicious tremendously. You know what they say: Fool me once... These are extremely loaded terms and phrases to throw around willy-nilly, and with each placement I'm more convinced it's a mere marketing ploy and not an original development of merit: sequel make a new Torment game Torment sequel natural fit for a Torment game What's interesting is that the wording in the interview appears to conceptually split the subtitle off the original setting Planescape: Torment. Sounds like Fargo wants to stress that the whole sphere around the game should be Torment: Planescape and the game they're working on now is a natural franchise "sequel." Well, that doesn't actually do PS:T justice because of the misuse of a literary/media definition, which I find patronising. se·quel [see-kwuh l] noun 1. a literary work, movie, etc., that is complete in itself but continues the narrative of a preceding work. se·quel 1: consequence, result 2a : subsequent development b : the next installment (as of a speech or story); especially : a literary, cinematic, or televised work continuing the course of a story begun in a preceding one Yet we know the setting won't be the same (that part I don't fault them), the story certainly won't be the same, none of the characters would be there. Absolutely no link besides the word Torment! Even DA:O's marketing wasn't that bad. This is not a damn sequel. Here's the thing, Obsidian: Wording matters. What words you choose and where you place them highlights your intent (whether accurate or not) and colors all the subsequent content in the article and beyond. By throwing around the heavily loaded and completely misused terminology, that tells me you are banking so heavily on PS:T nostalgia for salability that you place more emphasis on the nomenclature than the proposed game product and are hoping for blind fans. You know what? If DA:O was marketed without mentioning BG to which it had exceptionally little in common, I wouldn't have minded; probably even enjoyed it for what it was. If all your statements surrounding this new game were strictly about "capture the feeling" and "epic narrative" and whatever, I wouldn't mind; this is why I supported Project Eternity. I'm not a mindless fan-drone zealot and find the approach in this particular article to be, well.... rather offensive.

Mmm, yesss, we loves swag, preciousss. *fingersteeple* (In general; I didn't get a loot bag.) Thanks for the update, and get better pronto, you sick people. We need work done! Hop to it! And weekly updates? That's a lot more frequent than I expected, but if they're not very long, I suppose it's doable on your end, huh? Excellent. EDIT: Josh with the beard and thin face behind the mug reminded me a little bit of Saruman (a much younger version). Just sayin'. (Not meant as a slight!)

LOL You're obviously not here for Project Eternity.

Considering how "flexible" Obsidian wants to make the class structures overall, I hope I can finesse some weird pseudo-hybrid along the lines of Rogue-Priest. (Since I love the Cleric/Thief in ol' BG. )

As I said before, they could use a PRD situation to 'tame' the PRNG. http://www.dota2wiki...om_distribution http://www.playdota....read.php?t=7993 The Warcraft 3 / Dota version actually has an error in the math that causes values after 30% to deviate to much less % chance than listed though, but that's because the game was tailored to ladder play, where the highest % chance of anything in the stock game is 25%. Missed that. Interesting. Sounds like an ingenious way to coax the Law of Large Numbers down to human-understood levels in smaller time frames and sample sizes (and, of course, something only a CRPG can do properly). Let's make use of that computing power. I just realized something about my example above. I completely forgot about the "unconscious" bit once stamina runs out, which means losing stamina via defender avoidance doesn't make sense on its face. Oops! The only thing I can think of right now is to have avoidance 'damage' values fall below regen values just enough that the defender experiences attrition but according to probability, cannot avoid so many actual hits in succession that he'd fall unconscious purely from avoidance. Or something.

Right, so I personally favor a defense-roll system instead of attack-to-hit-roll, with intervening environmental factors if necessary. Taking into account your suggestion upstream (found the quote, heh) and further comparison to the other system I enjoy.... it could look like this, without any "miss" concept or mechanic: Attacker attacks, no roll for hit, roll for damage (percent critical chance, double damage). Defender rolls on his defense stats (dodge, parry, block separated, and then mitigation for attack type)-- Avoidance (full dodge, parry, block) = stamina damage Partial avoidance (partial parry, block) = stamina + smaller fractional health damage Hit (minus any mitigation bonuses against full damage) = stamina and regular health damage, doubled if the attack damage roll was a critical (maybe less stam damage but more health damage, to make the system more parallel with an avoidance/mit system, I dunno) Environmental factors (slow, blind, etc.) against the attacker will increase the defender's stats proportionally by percent. Likewise, environmental factors against the defender will decrease stats proportionally (Slow) or completely (Hold Person). Then ranged (tricky) and spells (resistance stat or mitigations dependent on something like CON). The whole "miss" mechanic is my least favorite thing in the old and proposed systems, but I'll get over it. A defense-based system feels much more natural and realistic to me. Regardless, it seems Josh being the D&D expert and all that will keep PE combat rolls in the D&D frame of mind, but the new system will still be better by taming the RNG a bit compared to the old IE games and D&D in general. I'd like to see character skill matter more than sheer luck for a "hit," anyway. The RNG still applies in many other things.

The question/suggestion has been asked/made in both the official #34 art update thread and in general discussion, but there has been no definitive answer. Also, +1 for using the word phenotype.

BG1 was originally slower than BG2, right? I don't know where BGEE is in terms of default speed. PS:T had both walk/run modes. That would be the best of both worlds.

Realistic villains always believe they're in the right.

When it comes to decision-making in ANY business, it's not mere "cost." It's "return on investment." Then what does emotive portraiture (painted, not anime/cartoony) actually add to the game experience? In the example clip, it looks like merely a matter of matching the portrait to the text; in well-written text, you should infer the underlying emotions near instantly, quite easily, or simply be told narratively. Then anyone with a working imagination can go with that. "She pursed her lips" or "he slouched dejectedly into the table"--you can see it, along with the body language. Multiple portraits become redundant. Even without PS:T's style of descriptive narration, the dialogic writing style carries significant undertones as well. And then how many portraits would we need for "nuance"? The video clip above doesn't seem to be from an actual role-playing game; there are no dialogue choices, just a couple buttons that seem to work like a passive webcomic in which you have no control over multiple branching choices. So that seems ridiculously simple--both that game itself and the concept of matching maybe five portraits to some basic dialogues. If you were going to the trouble of creating different and NUANCED portraits for dialogue choices of the level we might expect in PS:T, something like this can't work: Let's not forget that we already know the initial lines for NPC dialogues will be voiced. That's all the emotive/mood/attitudinal punch we need right there since that sets the tone for the entire conversation already. If there were no voices at all, you might have a better argument for this kind of inclusion. But in a game without "good" or "evil," which we're expecting to have dialogic and narrative content between BG and PS:T, having only a handful of emotive portraits would not do the true story content, the text, justice. Trying to match up for conversations like the above and beyond--it would become an impediment instead of an enhancement, IMO.

This subject sure wasn't what I thought of with the word "influence"...

I don't mean clinical crazy RAAUGH types; I mean otherwise seemingly rational individual NPCs placed crazily (or with little forethought, little explanation, no hooks for imagining how they got there). Like the fortune-teller. The dwarf who dreamt about you. Basically, that type of encounter can dangerously lead the player to think "why did the developer do that?" rather than an immersive conversation of some kind. Just a bit more content in the dialogue could make those encounters feel less off-kilter and more anchored in their immediate realities, like the miner-turned-fisherman by the abandoned house. Oh yes, the minimap, quest markers, so on... Hopefully PE won't have any of that anywhere. In terms of "backstory," I'm not sure the low-density areas in BG1 really had that. Rather, I think a more interesting issue for the free exploration is allowing quests to span the maps. The specific bounties are good examples that send people out to the wilderness (the evil cleric, whose crazy was fleshed out*) without any particular direction, for high risk/reward. The chicken quest was also good in that regard. And then stick around to explore the rest of the map... *Edit: That kind of CRAZY can be well done when there is more backstory to it. And it may not even be given by the NPC him/herself. Like overhearing rumors or finding an abandoned house on one map containing clues and then a crazy and "seemingly rational" NPC on another map. Basically, I'm asking for more depth to these kinds of low-density encounters, I suppose, precisely because they're on low-density maps.

I've been exploring those BG1 spaces in BG:EE lately, and I've come to a conclusion: Bioware enjoyed putting TOTAL CRAZIES on those maps. The fortune-teller/palm-reader lady (in the middle of nowhere, mind), the doctor trying to make amends (why isn't he closer to a city with sick people), the star-gazer who gives you an earful (comes towards you and then screams at you to go away), the dwarf who talks about his dream (fantastic scroll, thanks), even this girl who lost her cat (what kind of parents let her play in an area with a dire wolf or whatever). The tough mage merchant by the xvart village (dude, hawk your fake wares at the carnival or something). Et cetera. Wow, the BG1 wilds are just chock full of singular crazy folks! I mean, they're interesting to meet and all, gives a bit of flavor to that corner, but their placements don't make much sense. Those small groups of evil mercenary/blah types waiting to kill you--those are fun and can make sense if they're out in the wilderness hunting down quarry. But most of the noncombat encounters... At least the cabin of hunters vs druid made more sense with the immediate surroundings, along with the Fist deserter. The mage experimenting on slimes, fine, since mad scientists can be out in the wilderness. The archaeological dig is always interesting (I tried to fight that spirit guardian at level 1-2, didn't work out so well). One of my favorites has to be the "boy" and his lost "puppy." So I request that Project Eternity have some empty far-out spaces like this but include noncombat encounters that make more sense. Like a lost merchant caravan. A family of anti-metropolis homesteaders. A camp of diaspora. A real hermit. And, if possible, randomly draw some of the crafted encounters (both combat and noncombat) from a limited pool for per-playthrough variety. The scenery--the landscape range is fine for the Sword Coast geography. There's enough topographical variety given the limited geographical scope, so while I understand how some might tire of the "green limestone" look, it's not like the landscape was tiled or anything. The Sword Coast just had a smaller range along with less geological diversity. Some entire American states are a swath of the same flat grassy field while other states with smaller area contain vast variety (think Kansas versus Maryland). I think most people can agree that Obsidian wouldn't go wrong with a wide variety of geological formations and geographical diversity (desert, mountains, marshland, snowy areas), but at the same time, that depends on how much of the world map will be revealed for Project Eternity's first installment since this will hopefully be a franchise. BG2 was better in this regard but contained fewer true exploration maps (the one I'm thinking of is actually forced, so there may not even be any true random exploration maps, huh). I suppose something between BG1's low-density approach and BG2's would be great. At least, it's important that each map be unique enough to be be recognizable for the player.

Right, so how much will that cost out of the game's budget and how long will it take to render as opposed to actually writing content?

You're probably right. It's been a while, I don't know 4e rules, and I don't remember 3e very well at all. Either way, the RNG/dice roll burden would be shifted between attacker/defender... The system I described is actually a simplified generalization from the MMORPG Lord of the Rings Online. I didn't mention it by name for the simple reason that I know some people react negatively to the genre at first blush. While some mechanics are certainly more appropriate for one game genre over another (e.g. threat vs. aggro for MMOs, not so much for SP CRPG), I believe this basal level of combat system mechanics is quite neutral. Moreover, it doesn't really matter how complicated a CRPG's combat mechanics are; the computer is doing all the work for you in a split second, so this isn't like trying to translate back into pen-and-paper. It's my opinion that with the exponentially more powerful resources provided by modern computing, more reasonable/realistic/rational and potentially complicated calculations should be within the sphere of design for a CRPG. Whereas the original Infinity Engine games had to translate PnP D&D rules in order to use the entire IP proper, PnP and CRPG frameworks are still quite different; PnP systems could never be very complicated, else the human factor suffers. Regardless, we're down to talking about "feel," for which I'm sure Josh and the others are cognizant. It'll be interesting to beta test, that's for sure.

Yeah, I think it feels more natural to think about it that way. That system you described sounds awesome, but I doubt Sawyer & Cain would go that far with it. Some of these principles would be simple additions to Sawyer's recent proposal, though, such as "to dodge" scaling with DEX, and "to glance" scaling with STR, with other factors also exerting influence. I believe Sawyer already mentioned there will be an active ability to parry, so I don't think that should be abstracted in standard melee combat. Fair enough. Another concept I wanted to explain in comparing that system with this/classical D&D: Without the perceptual "miss" mechanic, the burden of the dice roll is actually always on the defender, not the attacker. Whereas in D&D and related systems, at least that I remember, you roll to see if you hit or miss the enemy and roll again to determine the damage, right? So this would be a big conceptual shift for some, perhaps. Well, in the system I described where the defense stats are broken out (block, parry, evade) and a "miss" mechanic doesn't exist in itself, that means the attacker simply "attacks" and then defender must roll to see if they can avoid being hit or mostly hit. Say I have a character-based 10% chance to dodge a melee attack, 15% chance to parry, 20% to block with a shield. I'd roll to see if can avoid an attack*. If the attack goes around all my defenses, then I as the defender must roll again to determine how much I can mitigate. (Oh, I didn't talk about the resistance stat in my previous post; I think that basically works as "dodge for spells." Anyway.) *I don't think anyone knows the exact math calculations for that game's defense stat application, which means it might work out to rolling a 1d100 and adding my block/parry/evade defenses (45% total) then figuring out how the attack was defended against based on the actual number rolled (e.g. 95/100 means I dodged) or rolling three individual 1d100 per defense stat. I never tried to look into it that much. Anyway. Just as I tolerate D&D mechanics in my gameplay (it's not the most important feature to me for the old IE game feel), I'll tolerate what Obsidian comes up with, I suppose.

It's basically a shorthand method of game implementation, to be sure. As side (corner, optional) content, this approach would certainly add flavor. In terms of lore, factions and cultures that interact presently in PE are going to have some common language anyway, so it makes more sense that an obscured language is "dead." For example, the mega dungeon appears to be a big abandoned thing and is already optional; perhaps an ongoing side story/quest/thing paralleling the dungeon levels would allow one to decipher the code of the temple's dead god enshrined within (heh). This could lead to a single encounter or treasure chest or whatever, possibly even elucidate details of the dungeon lore. But for the type of implementation you're proposing, probably not anywhere near the main campaign or major factions because the focus isn't really on the content the code arbitrarily obfuscates. On the other hand, a general language hook approach I described earlier like how PS:T handled it could be implemented much closer to the main campaign and characters. I think the more granular the puzzle, the further from the main campaign it should be, basically (but there should definitely be puzzles and riddles in general). Then it's up to Obsidian to decide whether the development effort is worthwhile or not for side content. Could be; I can see such an optional thing in the mega dungeon.

I commented in a previous post that external/environmental variables should certainly introduce and increase "miss" chance. It just makes sense that way, right? A race without night vision should miss a lot at night. But "miss" in actual combat on equal environmental footing, especially melee (ranged is a bit special, and then we have magic), never made sense to me...

To be honest, I'm very used to having defense stats independently wrought out from character sources (race, granular equipment bonuses, level, raw stat). So I'll generally describe the system currently used by another game I play: Originally, there was always a base miss chance for same-level PC and enemy. However, that base miss chance could be reduced using the DEX raw stat, which placed several classes at a notable disadvantage because that stat wasn't their primary class stat; it made little sense to me that a high-level, expert fighter-type class in melee would "miss" more than a ranged class with super high DEX. But the base miss chance for same-level combat was been removed, which I think is a good thing; there's still a miss chance for enemies higher level compared to you. Edit: I don't think spells could "miss" at all, but I'm not sure since I don't play a spell-casting class much--I believe spells would primarily be mitigated (see below) or resisted (which I don't describe). Then, the following defense stats exist independently of each other: block, parry, evade These defense stats increase depending on class->primary stat synergy (e.g. the fighter-type classes that rely on STR will increase block/parry with STR, while the thief-type class will increase parry/evade with their DEX stat--no block since they don't use shields). So in any given encounter, it's possible for a squishy medium-wearing class to avoid attacks while the heavy-armor class can block much of it. This type of defense, like I described in my previous post, makes much more realistic sense to me than a mere "miss" chance, because you're not actually missing: The other individual blocked, parried, evaded, or mitigated. Mitigations later. But the enemies can also block, parry, evade. So combat number crunching thus involves level-vs-level calculations between you and the enemy depending on level and class. It's possible for the enemy to end up B/P/E-ing away your attacks in succession and you likewise. There is another stat to counter the enemy's B/P/E called finesse. It's basically a stat that when increased, increases your character's overall combat skill in countering the enemy's B/P/E. Of course, the enemy also makes use of this stat. I don't think this level of detail is necessary in a game like PE, though (there'd be stat bloat and too much reliance on equipment). As for actual hits, there are partial blocks and partial parries. This halves the damage. There are also mitigations as character stats: physical mitigation reduces damage for all physical attacks like your typical melee/ranged arrows; tactical mitigation reduces damage for magical and elemental attacks. Your physical mitigation stat is affected by armor class, so a heavy-wearer will mitigate more than someone in a robe. As for tactical mitigation, this is increased primarily by the CON stat, which is generally recommended for all classes, and specific gear bonuses. Probably something else I'm forgetting. As usual, enemies can also take advantage of these numbers. Personally, as stated by others previously, I think aligning PE's stamina/health damage to mitigation/avoidance, where stam is lost but not health, would be perfect. Oh well. Comment: I'm not recommending that PE adopt something like this on its face, certainly, but pointing out that breaking out combat defense/offense like this has its advantages and can not only make classes more unique in offense/defense play but also give enemies some flavor. Specifically, we can get rid of the weird "miss" concept altogether and shift the RNG from a perceptual "miss" mechanic to something that makes more sense (to me), where the enemy is going to counter. The swishes would go from a bad RNG die roll "miss" to "the enemy dodged your attack." In actual play, I suppose things wouldn't change. But environmental variables should affect these kinds of stats too--if I cast Hold Person on someone, I'd damn well better not miss the bugger. But maybe his armor is so high that I can barely dent him anyway, so he mitigates everything at a high percent.

First of all, PE won't have any concept of 'alignment'. .... And there you have it. The paths and endings will differ based on faction and character choices, most likely.