Hormalakh

I'd be interested in any problems you've seen (other than the ones mentioned) with enemy AI that you've tried to tackle. You don't have to give code, but I think everyone would appreciate better enemy AI. One of the things that I think isn't generally discussed is what the actual "problems" are: what questions is the computer not answering when making a decision that a human player would innately do? If we can come up with some of these, the actual AI implementation can become easier.

Oh and before I forget... Any update on the website/pledge fulfillment front? would be nice to get some information before the end of the year.

I was wondering if the devs were also cosidering dividing a weapon into %slashing/%piercing styles too. For example, you can slash with a sword, but you could also pierce with one. Maybe it could be interesting to try style hybrids and see how they play out too? The question is: are you the REAL JVC? If you are, just wanted to salute you sir. Your M&M series was what started my love for dungeon crawling RPGs. Cheers.

Wow.... I'm impressed. Very awesome. Have a great holiday break!

Ah my mistake Ieo - thanks for clarifying. 'm not sure if encouter scaling is in though. At this point, i think this thread is moot. apologies to everyone for the waste of time.

@jezz555 The point was that the functionality of the wheel was in place, but not to be absolutely necessary for playing the game. That's why the examples I gave, weren't really game-changing. Mouse wheels do exist and we should make use of them. But we don't have to force them on people who don't have wheels.

level scaling's been confirmed for main story line. optional stuff is not level scaled. sorry s_p...

So, I've been thinking about previous games where level-scaling has been used to keep the difficulty of the story in balance, and one thing that I've noticed is that there is a tendency for some players to try to gain as little experience as possible to not advance in levels so as to keep the game fairly low-level (and easy). At that point, you'd have ridiculous mismatches with the main badguy being really low-level and it just not making any sense as to why such a so-called "powerful" badguy is so low-level that higher level grunts (which aren't level-scaled) could easily kill him. Like imagine keeping your party at such a low-level where everyone stays at Level 5, and the boss is a level 7. That's challenging for you, maybe, but it doesn't make sense how a level 7 boss is roaming the countryside striking fear into the hearts of lords and kings (or something to that effect). Imagine if Sarevok was Level 7: he wouldn't be as scary and it would become a little ridiculous. One idea I had about this was to set up certain "level-checks" mid or late-game that would be not-scaled, but being on the easy/medium defiiculty, so that the player would still have to force his characters to level up/ pass some certain quests before being able to finish the game or beat the final boss. This serves as a way to force players to actually scale up the difficulty in the main story before finishing the game. These in effect, play as forced level-ups, to keep players from not misusing the level scaling in the main story-line to do ridiculously short "speed-runs" or to make bosses not feel realistically challenging. Thoughts? Also: the devs should definitely try to test-play their game with this in mind, and see how thegame feels with a forced low-level party and make sure that the encounters don't feel out-of-place or not in line with the lore due to level scaling.

Thanks for the response Josh. I imagine you've thought about increasing the cost of purchasing skills as skill level increases - higher levels cost more skill points, like in Fallout where anything above 100% cost 2 skill points and so on. I imagine that since skill buying can still be kept proportional for all skills, it's another level of complexity added on to make continued improvement in a single skill balanced against purchasing new skills. It could also be used to increase the reuse of certain portions of the maps, since you couldn't really unlock certain content until you've reached a minimum level. Therefore, only those who choose to really invest in a skill can reap the benefits. This was sort of how Arcanum did its Master-level quests, which were only unlocked if a character invested heavily in a skill. Any word/thoughts on this?

Thanks for the response Dimitri. I appreciate that you took time out of your busy schedule to asnwer our questions. Good luck.

@Maltry Thanks for your thoughts. 1- I find that having some sort of in-game reference where you can review what dialogue has been said, or looking at the mechanics should be helpful. I'm not sure if this game will do this, but I have heard other players singing the praises of games like ToEE where there was an in-game reference for D&D mechanics. Yes, people might miss things I understand that. But don't punish other players who didn't miss things by forcing the knowledge own everyone's throat. Make the references available and those who need it can go and find it. 2- If people made a decision without having all the information, while it does sound frustrating to have made a mistake, I think it should be OK and players should be willing to live with their mistakes. Misunderstanding and incomplete information are realities of life as well. We do the best we can. With a video game it's even more different than a taple-top game with a DM. The rules are static: if you allow for repeats and "undos," it's a slippery slope you walk on before other gamers take advantage of those "undo" buttons and claim that the devs placed them in the game, and so -even if the dev didn't intend for them to be used that way- that it's silly to not play without those "undos" as if they're in-game mechanics. This can lead to unbalanced or easy games. Save-scumming would be an example. 3- Your tag and buff examples are interesting, but I have yet to see a developer place [tags] where they were not the best choice for a player. This whole [tag] is an example of meta-gaming anyway. All it does is allows the gamer to see the cogs turning behind the wheel. It can feel immersion-breaking or even be used to "meta-game" the game to victory. In either case, an option that turns them off would allow me to play without breaking from immersion and I do care about that more than anythign else.

Here are some other questioins. How did you get into animation for gaming? What's your favorite tool to use? Any tips for those interested in getting into game development? What do you find the most challenging when it comes to developing good art for games?

Yeah, I had to re-read my response to you and change it because I wasn't responding to what you were saying. I do agree with you that the hyperbole and "knowing" is unneeded. I have partaken in some of it myself (not necessarily here on this forum, but ... that's another discussion). A lot of people are just antsy because they want an awesome game. As for getting on your nerves, it's been noted. Don't take this stuff too seriously (I should be telling myself that...) Edit: And now I'm breaking my own rule!

You're mistaken Umberlin, the original interviewer was playing devil's advocate when asking those questions. As for your belief that all gamers are against the developers in their decisions, I would say that just as there are many gamers who invested in this game, there are opinions. Many of them agree with the decisions made and many disagree. As for "knowing" what the developers have decided, we can only go on what they've said and try to rationalize scenarios that exist. But I'll be the first to admit that I can't ever know exactly what Josh is explaining until after I've played the game. Thus, my acceptance of his proposed solutions with a healthy dose of skepticism. Edit: Unneccessary filler.

Well, I'm glad my thread ran its course. But honestly, I just can't bear this any longer. Pun intended.

I'll start with my own thoughts: at first I was extremely skeptical about the implementation of this design choice, as I thought it was moving too far away from the IE spirit and just basic D&D cRPGs. But, after thinking about this a little more rationally, I think that this doesn't bode too badly if implemented correctly. I've said before that Josh is good at finding problems inherent in the previous games and trying to come up with innovative solutions to them. My main concern is that too much innovation, that hasn't been proved by many years of gameplay, can seem interesting at first, but is also highly risky because of the many unknown variables. When theorizing solutions, there will always be aspects of the design that the designer will never see that the users can/will exploit. Ultimately, this can lead to less interesting gameplay (or it could lead to more interesting gameplay), but it's a risky decision to make. Too much innovation in solving old problems can come back and change the experience to something that smells nothing like the old one.

I didn't see a thread about this here and I thought you guys might find the following information interesting, since it is about Project Eternity. Our good friend, Infinitron, asked Josh Sawyer a question on his formspring and he answered with a video. The question was, "When you write about how all classes in Project Eternity should be "useful", what does that mean? Does it mean they need to be equally powerful and "balanced"? If so, what dos that even mean in a single player, party-based RPG?" Here's his answer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGv_-a8GBhY The conversation continued in chat and here was what was said: Q: You didn't address the "party-based" part of my question, though. _Should_ players even care how well any individual character in the party performs compared to another as long as the party as a whole manages to perform its tasks adequately? Also, FYI, the reason I write "balance" in quotes is because I'm not sure the definition of balance you're thinking of is the same one most people think of when they read the word "balance". Balance of what? Power? Usefulness? Choose your words carefully. A: Yes, they should still care because if there are weird imbalances in the party that are assumed to be solved with a "correct" party composition, that implicitly suggests "incorrect" party compositions. It's pretty common in D&D groups to "need" a healer. Arguably in BG2 there are places where you absolutely need an arcane spellcaster. I think that limits potential party compositions and is not a benefit to the player. I think we should move away from class designs that shove classes into a niche that have little/no overlap with other classes and then make content that effectively demands you have a character of class x/y/z to move forward. From my perspective, it's actually not important if the player doesn't care about individual class balance. But I'm the designer, not the player. I can't see any benefit for myself or players for me to *not* consider balance and utility in their design. Q: Re: "Correct" party compositions. See, thing is, that was kind of a part of the core D&D experience for a lot of people. Assembling the crew, like in a heist flick. Gotta have the healer, the mage, the tough guy. You'd carefully "hire" for each position. What about what I'm suggesting would stop you from making/building that party? Q: Presumably, your balancing of the classes would change them in such a way that the familiar dynamic of the classical D&D party would be irrevocably altered. Everybody would be sort of healer-ish, everybody would be sort of fighter-ish, etc. No diversity. Not if drawing outside of traditional lines is an optional activity. Want to build a wizard who wears no armor and stands in the back with noodle arms while the huge full plate fighter pounds on dudes' faces and the rogue scoots around backstabbing? Cool Q: Moreover, you might wish to consider that the traditional distinct classes had a sort of elegant simplicity to them. You've no doubt seen how every first-time player goes and rolls up his first Human Fighter. And not a Half-Elf Fighter/Mage/Thief. I might be getting a bit theoretical here since this is hardly an issue for me, but the traditional classes also had a secondary function, serving as a kind of additional difficulty setting. Fighters were for the beginners, mages were for experts. Nothing will prevent you from building a simple, straightforward, low-maintenance fighter (if you want to) in PE. Q: Oh, I don't doubt that. But of course that leads to the question of whether this great freedom and flexibility in character development will inevitably lead to poorly balanced combat encounters and other content. The most important type of balance. Inevitably? Come on. Q: Heh. I share your optimism! Unfortunately I can't say the same for everybody I know. You know, it would be great if you or somebody else at Obsidian could tell us a bit more about how you guys design and balance individual combat encounters in your games. [source]: http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer -------------------------------------- So, what do you think? Let everyone know. But, please please please please please please please please keep the conversation on-topic. If you're going off on tangents, just start a new thread.

Here's a good one: In Might and Magic 4/5. In one room, you find 9 chests arranged in rows of 3X3. They each have a number 1-9 and are arranged randomly. If you close the chests in the correct order you get experience. In the next room you have 9 chests arranged in 3X3 and you see each chest has a letter: C I K T H P O F R And you're told only those who think differently can open these chests. The chests give you mad lootz. That's a good puzzle. The reward is great; it teaches you the concept in the first room; you get significant (but not game breaking) loot; it's not necessary for the main quest.

I have played the modern games - it's not that I haven't. I guess it's more fair to say I've "played" them. Many of them. But I don't play many of them through. I play them on friends' consoles usually, and I've played a few on the Wii. I don't play many of them through to the end because I lose interest. But it's a matter of what I have time for. I've played some of these games for a few hours and really wish I never had. That's what keeps me from trying out the new games. There are a LOT of old games I haven't played. I just find that generally the older gen games have a much higher hit/loss ratio of good/bad games. I'm much more likely to find a good game in the old gen than I am to find in the new gen. A recent example: which isn't an RPG is Assassin's Creed. I've played them through and could barely remember a big portion of those games. Yees, the story's great but it's just a blur to me. I can't sit and remininsce about that game. Yet I played XCOM (1990's) for the first time 4 years ago. I still remember that game, and remember it fondly. Like I said, I wait for the wheat/chaff to separate. There are a few I want to play when I get a chance like FONV, Dark Souls and even DA:O. But I can't play everything out there and I don't intend on spending my money for everything out there. Honestly, if P:E comes out and its a good game, why would I go back and play the crappy ones? Edit: You know what was a good console game that I played and that I remember? Ninja Gaiden for the original XBOX. I don't remember the number but I remember that game. That game was hard. It was fun. I died a lot and I learned how to play it. Then it was fun. It was weird....but fun. And I enjoyed it. I wouldn't mind playing that game again.

The issue I have with newer games isn't because they make some things "easier" like automap. It's that they are actually POORLY designed and focus on the wrong elements. Old games had a lot less "switches and levers" to deal with and so were more intentionally designed. They didn't care about GRAFUX and AWSHUM MUSIC, they cared about FUN and INTERESTING and CHALLENGING. Those were what drove them. There were technical limitations and so they built out of what they had. And they put in a lot of time and effort into it. Yes I understand there have been improvements in gameplay and I advocte for them. I like hotkeys and think that they're important and make a game "easier" to play. Graphics make a game more visually attractive. Music is important. But these things do not define a game. Classic game developers had a different philosophy. Money wasn't their primary focus, fun was. A lot of the newer games are mainstream and made-for-consumption. They're made to be used and disposed. A lot of game makers I've heard talk about how movies cost $10 and last two hours and so therefore games should cost $50 and last five times as long. That's not the point. They forget that movie classics are watched over and over again because there is always something more to get from them. Classic games are the same way. Classic books are also the same way. I shouldn't read Shakespeare anymore because his English is too hard - I should read the newest Twilight book or Fifty Shades of Gray because those books are easy to read and you can consume them quickly. If I thought that P:E wasn't trying to be a classic and just another you pay $50 you get 10 hours of happy-fun time, I'd go read a book. I play the oldies because they are the classics in that genre. I'll wait a few more years until the newer ones have split into the wheat and the chaff. Then I'll pick and choose. My time isn't unlimited and neither is my money. If a book is better than a game in engaging me, then I'll read a book. If I honestly thought PE was not trying to become a classic, I wouldn't even care. But it's the one time I can finally enjoy a game when the developers made it, right when it's made and know that it'll be a classic. If they fail, then I probably won't buy a game for a very long time.

^Oh ok, thanks. Yeah like I said I didn't play dark Souls. To be honest, I don't play any newer RPGs and haven't actually. I'll probably get around to them when I'm finished playing all these delicious oldies.

Thanks for your insight. I would say that the "correct" solution to me, as a gamer, for your problem wouldn't be to give me any sort of respec mode or to suddenly make the game easier. I would say that the game devs failed to initially convey the importance of Dex to me. That's what I think kills theses games for players. It isn't the difficulty. It's the lack of conveying the correct message. It seems to me that had you known (maybe you missed it - I'm not sure what happened exactly) about the dex issue, this wouldn't have been a problem. Maybe it was conveyed and you missed it, and that at that point, I guess I'm not really sure what to say (suck it up, try again?), but if you were paying attention, then ... I haven't played Dark Souls, so I'm not sure about your exact situation, but thanks for the example of what I'm talking about.

Probably doesn't like his picture taken. I'd do the same thing. Frankly I'm more interested in the computer screen beside him...

Спасибо Dimitri

If the goal is to limit resting to being practically impossible out in the woods and dungeons and making the percentage high, the fact that you want to go back to town proves that this would be a feasible answer. While you might think the risks are too high, there will be others who don't and will rest out in the woods. This is much better than forcing a decision by saying "absolutely not!" As to actual numbers and the balance between "unacceptable frustration" and "acceptable frustration" we can do that by changing the encounter possibility percentages. That's an easy fix.