[On the class struggle and the coming victory of the proletariat]

@DCParry If you're replying to me, I think I need to clarify.

 

The concept of "class struggle" is explicitly Marxist. It is of course crucial to Marx's theory of history, and in my view a highly useful way to look at both historical and contemporary societies and their evolution. Marxist historiography does explain a lot of history in terms of class struggle.

 

However, pre-industrial societies did not conceptualize the conflicts within or between them in terms of class. In Marxist terms, the classes of the time had false consciousness. Peasants in a jacquerie did not think of themselves as rebelling against the class structure which made them peasants, nor did they believe that the conditions that pushed them to revolt were caused by that class structure. They thought of these struggles either in terms of 'justice' (restoring a usually mythical order currently unbalanced by an unjust ruler), or in religious terms. The Renaissance itself was originally seen not as an era of something new, but as the rebirth of the glories of ancient Rome and Greece. 

 

So yes, there was plenty of class conflict, sometimes even revolutionary or near-revolutionary class conflict (Chinese history has plenty of fascinating examples!), but describing this confict as 'class struggle' in the Marxist sense is anachronistic in a work of fiction set in a pre-industrial age. The concept wasn't invented yet, and people did not think of what they were doing in those terms. This is what I meant in my shorter post above.

 

I wasn't replying to you. I was just replying to a general sentiment that this sort of exploration had no place (I see you you were employing a formal use of "class struggle", while I was approaching it as a more general term).

[On the class struggle and the coming victory of the proletariat]

"Class" struggle is not only an industrial era sort of occurrence. The historical period that PoE is an analog in many ways was a precursor to the later revolutions (especially the French) that helped define the we think of class and social structure. You have peasant rebellions in what will be Germany in the 16th century (ironically, one of the moments that Engles actually uses in his arguments), as well as the HRE's early and contuning conflicts with Italian city-states (many of whom had not traditional based political and social organizations). 

 

Also, the Reformation had wide-ranging and lasting effect on the political, social, and religious landscape of Europe (and arguably was the most important moment of social change in pre-modern Europe).  

 

So, ya, keep overgeneralizing things and disparaging these themes. 

 

EDIT - Of course this glosses over such things as renewed contact with the Eastern Empire during the Crusades, conflicts as well as exchange between the Umma and Christendom, the melting pot of Christian/Jewish/Muslim Spain, but you know, these themes wouldn't be appropriate for the time period, would they?

[RPG elements that I would die for]

If the loot and cash my character aquired was transfered to my bank account at an reasonable exchange rate, that would make my day.

 

Hell, I would settle for an unreasonable rate. 

[Godlike mechanics and starting attributes]

In my mind, in a game like PoE, I really don't care if one "racial" choice is numerically superior to all others. Let munchkins choose them and be happy. For me at least, racial choice should be based on role playing and character design, not combat efficacy (ugh, paladin/bard/dragondisciple). 

 

Now that is not say the devs shouldn't endeavour generally to make each particular racial choice appealing, but there are ways to do that beyond boring everyone gets a homogenized +1/-1 sort of set up.

[On the class struggle and the coming victory of the proletariat]

What is, in fact, the third estate?

 

Of course, the question will always be more interesting with FIREBALLS!

 

I think they have developed a setting that is perfectly set for exploring conflicts along both social and ethnic lines (I suppose we could use the term racial here, but I despise using it in general), specifically in reference to democratic and pseudo-democratic organizations. 

 

And as Bioshock Infinite, I cut it a little slack in comparison to the general discourse of many games (also, anything that takes a swipe at objectivism gets bonus points). 

[No romances confirmed]

Wow. 

 

Just wow. This thread really reminds why I have basically stopped coming the forums. Complete lack of moderation turns something like this into a field day of flames and troll bait. It is an RPGCodex annex or something. 

 

Way to go fellas. 

[Update #72: Death Godlike and Expected Ship Date]

For what it's worth... I've seen "godlikes" (plural with an 's') tossed around, AND just-plain "godlike." I'm not sure which is the official spelling, but, I've gotta say, that "S" on the end REALLY makes the word awkward.

 

There are just certain words (usually descriptors used to describe people/members of a group) that sound/look REALLY wrong when you tack an "S" onto them:

 

-Forsakens.

-Relentlesses.

-Vigilants.

-etc.

 

Seems to me that "godlike" is one of them. Since it's kind of a fabricated noun, it just sounds really weird to be pluralized like that.

 

I realize this isn't the end of the world or anything, but, if it IS currently "godlikes" that's the official thing, then changing it wouldn't exactly be a monumental effort or anything. From a lore standpoint, I think it definitely benefits from the absence of the s. *shrug*

 

Just me two cents. I could be crazy.

 

Technically, I would assume that the adjective is standing with an assumed collective noun after it, so it should be "godlike", with the understanding of "godlike (what-evers)". In this case the adjective is being used substantively, but it stays singular because the replacement is for neuter plural collective noun. 

 

 

ANYWAYS, I am glad about the decision not to pursue extra stretch goals. This seems to be a problem endemic to kickstarter projects (feature bloat creates unrealistic expectations which further pushes back release dates, with means the product the backer gets is less polished and so on and so forth).  

 

The release date change, as everyone has noted, was not a surprise, but I hope this isn't won't turn into a moving target like many other current kickstarters. While we all want a good product and finished and polished game, it is the height of naivety to automatically assume (as most people seem to think here) that more time necessarily means a better game. 

[Playing other Kickstarter funded games makes me nervous]

Lol @ "The release dates!"

Give me one game that isn't delayed.

Does it suck? Is it crapridden with bugs?

Do you *want* that for the game you financed?

 

I understand this thinking, but often it goes too far and people think automatically more time equals better game. If you mismanaged or made too many promises for 8 months, another 2 months isn't magically going to fix your product. Sometimes, longer development can help a developer create a more stable, overall better game. More development time does not guarantee a more stable, overall better. 

 

Sometimes, no matter how much you polish a turd....

[How do classes differentiate outside of combat?]

It would seem plausible that some classes would have different options in certain areas though.  One could imagine a cipher having different choices when talking about animancy, since the cipher messes about with other people's souls constantly in combat; a priest might have different choices in a religious dialogue or a temple; a druid might have the good old "talking to animals" option, as might a ranger.  That sort of thing seems eminently reasonable to me.

 

In addition, something like enthnic/national origins might have just as big (if not greater) effect on PC knowledge and behaviour as class would. Hence, there might be identical options for a dialogue about the migratory habits of ice weasels for both a ranger and a mage with high survival skills, but a boreal dwarf might have an extra choice over say a god-like. 

 

I completely understand the desire for class choice to have an out of combat effect. Is it such an issue if you can do mostly same the same with skill choices? So, if you choose particular skills based on what idea for your character's background and knowledge, don't we functionally get the same the thing with, in addition, the ability to create more unique out-of-combat templates? For a mage for example, if you wanted a character who went through formal training and spent most of her life in study with other mages you can pick skill choices to approximate that, just like you could for a mage that was trained informally by a hermit in the woods away from civilization or one who spent her time as part of a mercenary company. Instead of having generic mage knowledge, we can customize the way in which our PC interacts with the world. Of course, this doesn't address the class quest issue, but even those sorts of quests could be activated by skill levels (ala the burglary spree in DA:O). 

 

Of course my thoughts are based on the assumption that we will have a robust skill system which involves skill sets we already (like survival, mechanics) with other common/useful areas (something like spellcraft, religion, and so on). 

[Update #71: The Heavy Hitters: Rogues and Rangers]

Great replies Josh - Answered my question about an non-pet archer character. I assume there will be some particular advantages for a fighter archer as well. 

[Update #71: The Heavy Hitters: Rogues and Rangers]

 

As for using quasi-WoW jargon to describe the relative combat role of a given class, I'd attribute this to the fact that WoW is a source of colloquialisms.

Indeed it is. Specifically, it lends itself easily to colloquialisms because of the cookie-cutter, one dimensional, easily definable nature of the builds. And the fact that combat practically REQUIRES that each of these roles be filled.

 

It's not deal breaker. I actually had a lot of fun playing WOW, for about a year. But Please obsidian, please: Don't mimic WOW with the specifics. I do not want to see a "Threat Generation" mechanic on my front liners, for example. Just...Don't.

 

 

 

....

 

That is not how language works. 

 

 

Hyperbole and over reation seem to dominate all of your comments. If you don't like Sawyer and co's idea of game design, I wonder why you are here.

[Update #71: The Heavy Hitters: Rogues and Rangers]

While I am not a big, personal fan of the direction they went in for the ranger, it seems a lot of people like it so that is cool. Like a few others I am curious if you can build an archer/musketeer character without an animal companion (either a some trade-off for the ranger, like say a "Wilderness Betrayer" perk where you sacrificed your companion to save your own life in the past and while you don't get the advantages of the companion you get other boni [to defense, or stamina regen or some such], or a warrior who specializes in ranged combat). 

 

But aside from my personal preferences everything is looking awesome. Can't wait for more info!

 

 

OH - As an aside, for those of us in the digital tier with the free copy of Wasteland 2, how are going to receive that? 

[On PE difficulty mechanics, objective xp and combat, stealth, sweet-talking]

 

Hi Hiro!

 

Nah man - a random encounter is still a challenge. You will still get an XP value for solving the encounter.

 

Prove it.

 

 

Hi Stun,

 

Just like to point out that Wyverns drop Wyvern heads and spiders can drop spider poison sacks.

Spiders don't drop anything in BG1. (and no, the quest-based spider carcass in Bereghost is not loot. Nor is that spider a random encounter)

 

 

e) Absorbing the Bronze Sphere will give you as much XP as all the previous murdering combined....

So?

 

 

First off all, no need to be offensive. Also, it is disingenuous at best to demand someone prove something when you have in fact offered nothing resembling "proof" for your assertions. 

 

 

First of all, you are looking at random encounters as merely wandering bodies, instead, of, you know..  an encounter. If experience is awarded on reaching goals and objectives, one might reasonably argue that overcoming (i.e. not getting slaughtered by) a random encounter is an objective. Hence, resolving said encounter in some manner will net you some experience. The point is your are not being rewarded for killing the enemies per se, but if killing the enemies completes the objective, you are rewarded. Just as avoiding the enemies might give you experience, or tricking them. 

 

Being wilfully obtuse does make your argument any more valid than anyone else's. 

[Friendly Fire]

@DCParry:

 

To be fair, it's really no less restrictive than simply not-having an option for immortality, for the people who don't want to have to deal with hitpoints when they play.

 

As I hinted at above, the game isn't inherently forcing anyone to strike their own allies with a spell. It's simply something that could happen. As long as the game doesn't all-but-require it to happen (basically, if you don't blast away at friends and foes alike with those spells and abilities, you're going to lose fights, even on Easy), then all's well.

 

I see what you are saying, even though I wouldn't go so far as to equate non-friendly fire with immortality. As a personal note, I hope that they find the fine line between tactically interesting and tedious. I find as I get older, I have less patience for overtly tedious (this is all in my opinion, and of course many people will view it differently) activities and that is when I find myself toggling off things like FF.

 

The question then is are AOE spells going to be fundamentally superior to other sorts of direct damage in the majority of fights or not? No one is ever forced to do anything of course, but if this is the case, then essentially the outcome maybe similar. I have faith that they will be able to make spell choice tactically varied, but I still have reservations at the FF always on. 

 

Also, if FF is always on, do not give FF to melee weapons. For the love of all that is holy. 

 

 

EDIT - @ J.E. Sawyer

 

That sounds great, and it does alleviate most of my concern. Usually I gravitate towards non FF spells anyway in such situations, but I am glad to hear that you have thought about the variety of use here.

 

I still like toggle though ;-)

[Friendly Fire]

We don't have any plans to make FF a toggle.  Our approach with difficulty is to add or remove enemies to change the tactical considerations of encounters and to hide or reveal information based on user preferences.  FF is just a part of how some spells work and I don't think it's a good idea to make that something the player can toggle.  It changes the values of those spells too much, IMO.

 

Hmm, I was preparing a different post but, personally, I find this a problematic approach. As a player, I ALWAYS play with friendly fire enabled and such (except for DA2, which , come on, was just annoying). Regardless, not to pull out the nostalgia card, but to my recollection FF was always a toggle that was initially based on difficulty (I know it was with NWN2). In addition, there were scaled implementations (1/4,1/2, full damage to friendlies and so on). 

 

You are correct in that it is easier to gage the power and balance the spells if you lock FF on, but the counter argument to that it.. who cares? If someone wants to play on easy and fireball to their heart's content, so be it. This just seems unnecessarily restrictive. 

[Update #70: New Year Project Update]

 

 

Not that I care either way, and I like it, but honesty time: did you come up with that solely to address this issue?

(I like the attention to detail though)

 

 

The concept of adra was developed early on as a not-quite magical material that had some interesting properties.  I like being able to have "impossible" structures, but I don't like hand-waving their impossibility away.

 

Unfortunately your secret is out, Mr Sawyer. Those friendly folks at the RPGCodex have published the inside story behind your Adra concept:

 

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/pillars-of-eternity-kickstarter-update-70-screenshots-stats-and-stuff.89119/page-5#post-3061980

 

 

Seriously, no wonder everyone hates that place. 

[Spell interruption in Pillars of Eternity will not cause loss of the spell]

Cooldowns R Gay.com

 

Thank you for your comment. I quite appreciate such well thought out and not knee jerk reactionary ideas.

[Spell interruption in Pillars of Eternity will not cause loss of the spell]

A possible compromise here would be to make the interrupted spell unavailable for the rest of the fight in which it was interrupted only. That way you still achieve the tactical "spell loss", but without inflicting a lasting strategic penalty on the mage who was interrupted.

 

A further variation on this would be an "interruption cooldown" that makes the interrupted spell unavailable for a limited time period that you can wait out.

I think an interruption cool down would be a good mechanic, with the duration dependent on the difference or failure range between the concentration and penetration roles. 

 

This might add some interesting mechanics, especially if there are certain abilities that have extra penetration (teehee) that you can use to try to delay certain enemy spells or abilities.

[Update #70: New Year Project Update]

Am I the only one who can't cope with words like "Elardh Dwr", "Frermas mes Canc Suolias" or the name of the banshees? I wish I could, but whether my head nor my tongue knows how to handle these. Will there be something like a pronounciation guide in the collectors edition of the game?

 

Says the person who is a landsknecht!

 

I have a trick I tell my students to use when encountering archaic words in their readings that they think they can never pronounce and hence never remember, which seems like a good strategy for single player gaming environment. When you come across one of these words that blows your mind, just try to say it out loud. You may not even come close to pronouncing it correctly, but that is fine. Once you create an audible version of the word, you will remember the visual markers better. I know it may offend some of our "nerdy" sensibilities to say something incorrectly, but in the long run it will be more enjoyable as you won't be searching for the meaning of the term as much as you will have an easier time remembering it. 

 

As an aside, the name of the order of paladins reminds me of the name of a nice French I had the other week. 

 

 

mmmMMmmmmm..... Knights of Camembert......

[Update #70: New Year Project Update]

 

 

One of the advantages of having different attributes governing physical and magical accuracy/damage, apart from important RP reasons, is to be able to fine-tune balance between physical and magical attacks.

 

If all damage is affected by Might and all accuracy by Dexterity, you can't adjust attribute-enhancing spells/talents/items with specifically physical or magical damage/accuracy in mind.

 

As a designer, why would I want to?  If someone wants to play a traditional wizard, they'll bump Int and have big AoEs and long effect durations, which is cool and beneficial.  If someone wants to make a muscle wizard, they can bump Might.  If they don't like the idea of having a high Might wizard, there are five other stats for them to bump for their benefit.

 

Tuning is easier when there are fewer/less diverse input sources.  If Might is the attribute that affects damage for everyone, it's much easier for me to calculate how that feeds into the system than if every arbitrary type of attack/damage has its own attribute that affects it.

 

 

I don't know.. I suppose there are several reasons.

 

Wizard with high Might (Strength) and Dexterity: His fireballs will disintegrate enemies as they deal exceptional damage and are very accurate.

He will also be good at walking on suspended ropes and moving large rocks.

 

Wizard with high Intellect and Perception: "Hey look, I have huuge fireballs (sadly I need a few of them to kill a rat), but I *am* able to interrupt the rat's attack pretty often!"

 

 

I'd prefer to have wizard #1, but I really don't need him to be alpha and omega for walking across suspended ropes and moving huge rocks, as well.

 

 

 

I don't know why would it be harder to calculate if magical attacks are affected by stat B and pysical by stat A. Two distinct types, not "every arbitrary type".

 

 

That is why you don't dump all your points into one stat. 

[Vote it up ;)]

My final choice was .....

 

 

PoE vs. DA:I

 

So, Eternity led my final list, but Dragon Age was second. SO THERE!

 

I AM NOT ASHAMED!

 

SO NAH! 

[Fear: UIv2]

Hey Kark - Did you use WoW icons just drive some people crazy on the boards 

 

;-)

[More Info On The Expansion Pack]

 

Well, at 20$, it has the same price tag as the game itself (early bird). Seeing as the engine and IP will already exist, the expansion should be larger than the game itself...

 

I can't remember any XP that had more content than the base game.

 

 

Hordes of the Underdark!

[Obsidian's ideas for a new Kickstarter (3rd Part RPS interview)]

 

Ya, good thing they didn't go turn based with X-COM. 

Primary reason why I have yet to bother finishing the game.

 

It was acceptable back in its heyday, but right now its an artificial restriction employed to appeal to the neck-beards who would have had an apoplectic fit of epic proportions if anyone messed with "their" game. It's intrusive  game-play for the sake of nostalgia. 

 

 

It is not nostalgia. It is no more an artificial restriction than the restrictions on ANY OTHER SYSTEM. It is merely a different way of representing action in a video game.

 

Just because you personally don't like it doesn't make it backwards. I freaking hated the combat in Fallout 1. That doesn't mean I think there is something inherently in all TB systems. 

[Obsidian's ideas for a new Kickstarter (3rd Part RPS interview)]

The sci-fi thing can be tricky, (Space Siege, anyone?). 

 

Some form of steampunk derivative would be great.... 

 

turn based

 

Yeah, no. TB is archaic and the reasons for it existing in the first place ceased to be some time ago. I get that there is a solid core of nostalgia sufferers out there, but the market has moved on. Time to embrace the change and relish a fresh new dawn of multi-core processors and multi-GB machines. 

 

Ya, good thing they didn't go turn based with X-COM.