Hormalakh

Wow ingenious. Increase market share of your software by giving an older version. People will use it and see that they need it and then some will undoubtedly go out and buy the newest version. You also limit the pirate problem. I noticed they're also doing monthly subscriptions for their newest suite. Very interesting business decisions.

Is there a puzzle involved? Or is this meant to play more like a fetch quest where you just have to find all the information and cannot solve the puzzle without actually finding all the information? I don't think there is a problem with certain puzzles having to involve the player rather than the characters. I have mentioned in the past that intelligence limiting the characters should play a role, etc. But I'm not sure how important that should really be. Most parties will have at least one character that will have a high intelligence (playing a mage) or a high luck regardless of whether these attributes are even considered (will luck even be an attribute?). We don't have to LARP our computer characters in everything that they do.

lol @mstark re: degeneracy. There is a difference, I believe, in the reasons you give for so-called "degenerate load/save" and reasons that the developers give for degenerate reload/save. One has to do with trying out different strategies to solve a particular problem or challenge when all the information is laid before you. This would be the example of Commandos. The other (and the one that I agree should be reduced) is when the challenge itself is the lack of knowledge (you don't know what kinds of enemies you'll see so you can't be sure what spells to prepare) and the only way to really bypass that challenge is to "meta-game" and "degenerately load and save". Even if you played Commandos today, the challenge is still there. You still have to execute the strategy correctly to win. With other DnD RPGs, the challenge of not knowing what enemies lie ahead of you is no longer there. There is still a challenge there (similar to Commandos, you have to execute your strategy correctly) but it is severely reduced.

I did want to point out an observation that I've had about this. In older games, where the obstacle to finding the answer to these questions was extremely high (there was no internet and hints were only found through expensive phone calls or limited strategy guides), developers continued to utilize such puzzles/riddles for their audiences, without much furor. However, now with the unlimited supply of solutions and strategy guides available at the touch of a mouse button through the internet, suddenly the furor has increased? For the players who don't like such puzzles, the answers can be quickly found online and they do not limit their gameplay. Whereas for players who would rather solve such puzzles without the hints given by a multiple choice, they/we do not have such an option. It seems a little backwards to me. If you get frustrated by the puzzle and want to just move on, look up the solution online. If you want the challenge, it's there for you. Even I, from time to time, don't really feel like solving word puzzles, and I'll just look up the answer online to bypass a specific puzzle. I guess there are more elegant ways to give players "hints" but I don't find it to be too big of an issue when I can't solve the puzzle.

How is trial-and-error guessing from a list of options different from trial-and-error guessing from a series of letters or syllables? How is it metagaming? Trial and error guessing from a list of options already tells you all the information you require. It gives you all the options possible and severely limits the options for the player. You aren't really guessing/metagaming from a series of letters unless you're absolutely sure you have all the information. For the LABORATORY example, if you hadn't found the BO clue, you might still be able to figure out LABORATORY with the incomplete information. Or maybe you're not sure if its LABORATORY or LAVATORY since you're not sure if a BORA or a VA exists or not.There is still a challenge involved there of trying to solve puzzles without having all the clues in front of you. The other aspect is that these typed-in puzzles can act as in-game obstacles for developers to help maintain some sort of path for players without forcing it upon them. If you've found the clues in the universe to help you solve the puzzle, then you may proceed to the next section of the game. But if you are able to guess the answer (or if you are replaying the game and don't wish to repeat certain portions of the game world) then you can by-pass this obstacle. You do not have this option with a multiple choice riddle because the answers are limited and thus such riddles can only act as extremely weak/low obstacles for the player. You can also always have riddles with limited or no clues (all the letters aren't given to you) that further challenge the players. Perhaps these riddles might be included for rare items or experience, but I doubt that most players would want them on plot-driven aspects of the game.

I loved those games. Thief was also a nicely done 3d stealth game that utilized sound extremely effectively. The floors that you walked on had different sounds and would either cause the guards to hear you very quickly (marble or metal floors) or to not hear you at all (carpeted floors). You could also shoot out torches with water arrows and hide in the shadows. These stealth games are awesome. If Project Eternity can utilize any of the game mechanics when it comes to stealth, that would be quite fun.

Once again I'd have to recommend World of Xeen. There is a Dungeon of Doom, as it's called, that has one whole level dedicated to a crossworld puzzle. It's really an interesting way of doing it. There is a fairly long story before you get started about the adventures of someone on the world of xeen, and several of the words are highlighted in green. Then when you go through the level, you see how long each word is based on the pacing and the clue is given at the beginning of each series of steps. When you type in the answer, always an answer from the highlighted words, the floor below you changes from shallow puddles to stone, informing you that the answer was correct. The extremely big dungeon level rewards you with experience and the opportunity to delve further in the dungeon. The whole dungeon was optional however, and I'm not sure if it was because of the "difficulty" of the crossword puzzle or because of development time running out. It is, nevertheless, highly regarded as one of the best puzzles for M&M:World of Xeen.

There have been games that have overcome this problem in the past. One game that comes to mind is the Might and Magic World of Xeen series. These games required you to type in words but the letters were given to you through clues that you had to search for in the dungeon, for exaample. The clues can be given and then you type in the code. This forces the players to actually play through the content instead of metagaming answers through a multiple choice quiz. Of course, there were then the really difficult ones that required a bit of thinking, but even those only had rewards that were non-story driven and just gave you experience. obviously, the developers can also make the riddles case-insensitive and punctuation-insensitive.

good ideas. always a fan of inspirations being drawn from other games that have shown to be fun. if properly implemented, it can even solve a lot of other issues as well, like pulling enemies, etc. i just wonder if it is difficult to implement. is the code particularly tough to add to an RPG framework? i'm not sure how feasible the technicals are.

Yeah. Crazy, Stupid Love was a surprise. I generally don't like these movies because it's just about Dating Culture and that's just boring. Of course, I didn't know Steve Carrell was in it.

Did you watch TG yet? I think I want to watch it again....

lol at understanded. respect for speaking a language that isn't your first. as for your questions, there will apparently be "misses" in the game. this conversation with Josh Sawyer wasn't set in stone - it's still a work in progress.

Masteries, Rune Pages, Build Order (Which skill should you invest in first? Which Gear should you focus on buying etc. etc in what order?). All of this different for which champion you like. You've barely scratched the surface Hormalakh if you just started playing. Takes time to get to level 30. No I know about Masteries, runes, BO, etc. for each champion. The point was that the actual amount of champion customization that you get in these games is obviously nowhere near as much as you get in a cRPG. Your damage output and armor etc are also quickly calculated for you using fairly simple systems. There is no "weapon specialization" for example. The masteries and runes that you get give you attack advantages to all aspects. It's a broad game, but a fairly shallow one. Yet the point is that these advantages you get can apply to any champion that you have. Your choices are not towards improving your characters as much as it is towards getting the right runes, gear, etc. These are external to the champion. Which is fine for these MOBAs; that is the way they were created because ultimately they are derivations of a limited system (Starcraft and Warcraft) which didn't really allow that much character customization.

So congratulations you pushy bastards though obviously it's not finished yet, it looks like Sawyer might have been swayed... I think the above proposed solution is actually quite great. The beginnings of a good hit/miss system.

Movies I've seen? In the last few days? **** The Incredibles ***.5 Men in Black 3 ** Looper **** Crazy Stupid Love ****.5 Little Miss Sunshine * The Karate Kid * Bad Teacher (more like Bad Movie) ***** V for Vendetta ***.5 John Carter *** 21 Jump Street **** Kick-A** *** The Man in the Iron Mask My eyes hurt

I rushed in here to see if someone was feeling suicidal and to tell them not to kill themselves and to seek help and that they are loved. Alas, anime was what I found instead. Tokyo Godfathers is a really good anime too.

The card system (event-dependent based probability system) reshuffles at a set point (the end of each battle, maybe?). Over an extended battle you are likely to critical fail (miss), fail (glancing blow), hit, and critical hit a set number of times, each of which varies on X and Y factor (skills?). Variability is maintained and future events (success in shots/melee attacks) are dependent on previous events. Reloading due to failure is pretty much the same as a reshuffle, so your odd aren't changed with a reload. incomplete-information problem is maintained (sometimes you can win tough battles if you get the right set of "cards") and it's actually fun. Edit: Or you can try a mixture of the two. Conditional probabilities for melee and unconditional probabilities for ranged weapons/magic (with a lower critical failure chance). Probability is fun! edit 2: If you reshuffle the deck every so often (end of battle) you aren't sure if you will necessarily fail. "I hit three times and I was due for a fail but this is a new battle. I might fail or I might not."

One last idea. Instead of making misses not occur and staying away from RNG, how about trying dependent-type probabilities instead of independent event probabilities. Instead of rolling a dice, what about pulling cards from a deck? Will that change anything?

lol i think they know better than us how to make a game. i don't consider any of my comments "advice" anyway. they're just snapshots of my gaming experiences. far be it from me to give "advice" to a game developer. i think it's a matter of finding a balance between frustration and clear player choice. some older probability-based conflict resolution has been frustrating for players in the past )there have been many threads on this board about save-or-dies for example). It's a trade-off I think between choice and frustration. I could be wrong, but that's the vibe I've been getting.

Why would they? A lot of people have voiced this concern. Apart from a few overly sensitive types I see this thread as nothing but win for Obsidian. They're making the game they wanted to and getting feedback from their players. We make comments on what we've seen in the past and they consider it. It's much better than a producer telling them what to do and there being no reasoned discussion about it. I live in America though and believe that the best ideas come from the reasoned discussion and evaluation of ideas. I don't think Obsidian is the type to be overly sensitive about what their varied gaming demographic says. It's pre-production afterall.

Yes, that is a consequence of normalizing ranges, so again this comes back to asking players the question, "How much chaos do you like?" In many cases, this is a personal preference. I have, for instance, seen people request elements like the fabled Ars Magica/Rolemaster botches and crits of old, which were wild and crazy. I have been thinking about this and I think the answer to the question lies somewhere near "enough chaos to give the player the illusion of choices in combat." If the chaos is sufficiently interesting to make gauging combat scenarios and whether a party should engage or not an interesting choice, then I think the job is done. There should be times where players should not be absolutely sure whether they can take on an enemy or not. Doing so makes players feel that the game is less linear than it would otherwise be.

An 80% chance to hit is a 20% chance to miss; IIRC, three consecutive misses is (.2)^3 = 0.008, or 0.8%. My mistake, yes. It's 0.8%. Edited previous comment. You know this might be a mistake on my part. Looking at the DoTA/LoL games, those games really are dependent on gear (very little character customization) and so I might have jumped to a mistaken conclusion there. Obviously the DnD 4e games wouldn't be affected this way. As long as the absolute difference between a hit and a glancing blow from a weapon is significant enough that character skill matters, this really shouldn't be a problem.

I would actually be very happy with this. I think that it's the beginning of striking a good balance.

I can't count the number of times I've seen players make a complaint in the vein that their XCOM units had 90% chance to hit and missed three times in a row. "Impossible!" An 80% chance to hit means you miss 1 out of 5 times (20%) for the next shot. An 80% chance to hit means that 1 out of 125 times (0.8%) a player will miss every shot for the next three shots. Players don't realize that each shot is an independent event however, and the second line "makes more sense" to them, where in fact, after each shot, they need to realize that their probability has once again "changed back" to 20%. Probability is hard for some. [h/t: rjshae]

Long post. I've bolded the important bits. Sorry! Thanks Josh for taking the time to have this conversation with us. I've been thinking about this since yesterday and I finally got a chance to experience the game mechanic you are proposing in a game or two. A few things struck me and I think I'm better able to articulate my concerns. I firstly realized that, as you had pointed out, the question here can become one of variability over random conflict resolution and how to make this interesting for the player. It seems to me (and I could be mistaken) that you believe limiting this range might be beneficial for the game in some way. For example, instead of so-called "chaotic" ranges in probability, we tone down the chaos. I considered this aspect in certain games and tried to evaluate them in the context of cRPGs and what I find to be interesting about them. I first noticed (in games like LoL, for example) that the HP bloat wasn't addressed, but that turned out to not really be the biggest issue for me. I should firstly restate that I am speaking strictly about melee combat here. I think different systems can utilize slightly different "ranges" in probablity distributions, but what worries me the most is the lack of "chaos" when it comes to melee combat. When I considered melee combat in probability-based conflict resolution, I realized quickly that conflict resolution more immediately became less reliant on the skill of my character and more reliant on the loot/equipment I was carrying. As the variabilities for these weapons started to decrease, it became more important to find a "stronger" weapon to increase the base damage than it did to increase my character's skill with the use of the same equipment. I think this becomes mainly the biggest of the problems for me. I also realized that I was missing the "frustration" of early level combat but at the same time, there was a more linear approach that I should be taking towards combat. If my variances fall within a certain range, my character can only approach a smaller subset of combat situations at any time. I know the average damages that I can produce at any time and the combat situations I put myself in must fall within the appropriate risk/reward scenarios. As these variance ranges of probability decrease, my options of "viable" combat scenarios decrease. Dodging enemies allows you to sometimes risk fighting enemies at a higher-level than you, even though the the risks are high. Yet the rewards for such a fight are also high. I would thus propose that you consider increasing the "chaos" of your probability-conflict resolutions, but either tier them based on skill, or utilize thresholds. One possibility is to utilize poisson distributions and other non-normalized distributions to show character skill. What this does is allows a character to use the same long sword they got in Chapter 1 as a viable weapon, but because the skill in the character has increased, the probability ranges of the weapon has changed. This makes the character the actual weapon and the long sword the tool. I have a previous post here that tries to further explain this. ------------------------------------------------ I also have a few comments about the considerations that you have made here about XCOM and player's reaction to RNG. I will approach the RNG first. I, like you have already explained, have sometimes found it difficult to clarify concepts of probability to people who look at such problems from a different perspective than I. It thus seems to me that the problem isn't probability per se when it comes to conflict resolution, but the perspective in which it's framed for the players. I wonder if changing the terminology might help players better accept this. Changing "Chance to Hit" to "Chance to Miss" for example, would be an interesting experiment to try with your testers. See if changing how the probabilities are described to them changes the way they see the situation. And finally about XCOM. One of the issues I have with you using XCOM as the go-to for RNG failure is because of the way that their RNG works. They used pre-seeded RNG that meant meta-gaming was part of the game with a saved seed at the start of the game. Your RNG would never change every time you reloaded. It’s basically allowing the player to know the dice rolls for the next few rolls. The probability values change completely when you have a priori knowledge of those rolls (see the Monty Hall problem for an example of this). The probability of a 6-side die rolling a 1 is 1/6. But in X-COM, meta-gaming meant that the probability of rolling a 1 is either a 0 or 100%. This was meant to fight against the degenerate game-reload, but the issue is the player mentality when it comes to risk/reward structure. Like I’ve said before, a high risk/resource action is more likely to initiate player reloading if a roll is bad (disintegrate save-or-die), but a low resource action that is being performed several tens of times is less likely to initiate player reloading for a few bad rolls. In my most recent experience with Arcanum which had quite brutal critical fails, the thought of gaming the system didn’t cross my mind because I would have to save/load so frequently as to make it frighteningly boring.