Lephys

Ahh, well, my mistake. I'm not claiming to be capable of misunderstanding. I just try my best. I apologize for the inconvenience. This is the only thing left I don't quite see as very accurate. Take an internal combustion engine. Surely the cylinders, pistons, and crankshaft are the most significant parts, right? Maybe we could include the fuel/air mixture and the spark. But, the cylinders are where the engine's operation occurs, and they turn the crankshaft. These are part of the actual significant function of the engine. However, if you take out the engine's oil, it's going to overheat and seize. So, which is more significant: the oil, or the rest? I get that the combat is most likely going to be very prevalent (as far as portion of the game spent within it goes), but the other systems make the game what it is, as well, obviously. So, I'm just wondering specifically what kind of balancing combat should get more attention in than other systems? I don't know how you would conceivably balance between combat and lockpicking in favor of lockpicking. Or, take the item system... look at Borderlands 2. If you put 3,000,000 different pieces of equipment in the game, the item system STILL doesn't steal the microphone, so to speak, from combat or exploration or anything else. It still just supports it, and, in-turn, is supported by it. The relationship doesn't seem to change at all. Might I trouble you for a specific example?

That... which is an aesthetic mismatch (that 110lb human female character doesn't seem strong enough to hold two 35-lb two-handed battle-axes). I know you probably weren't intending to stop at the pure visual believability, but, that's less of a problem than "she can easily swing those weapons because of inner soul strength, but she can't do anything else in the world that such strength would warrant, like punch through stone doors, or toss taverns at people." No matter how your fantasy physics and rules differ from real physics and rules, they still have to adhere to the boundaries that they, themselves, establish. Also, from a game mechanics balancing standpoint, you run into "How do I balance a two-handed battle axe against 2 one-handed weapons or a weapon and shield/artifact/whathaveyou when people can just wield two-2-handed battle axes?" So, either everyone can do that, or it's pretty rare. And if it's pretty rare, you might as well go with "Only 9-foot-tall max-strength Barbarians can do that." Even if you don't actually base it (or at least completely base it) on the STR stat, you still need to find a way to limit it, or there's no reason not to always pick dual-wielding two-handers. It becomes an upgrade instead of a choice. I think even if you decide to let super-hosses dual-wield two-handers, it should cost them some other very useful potential increase (not JUST "you don't really get defense now," because that, by itself, just means you're basically going to be a glass... ehh, twirly blade cannon). Maybe you get the choice between double two-handers, OR 3 extra skills with any other weapon set. There shouldn't be a choice of "feats" between "Your shield can deflect arrows twice as often now" and "YOU ARE NOW A FORCE OF NATURE!" As long as it makes sense (in the context of the game's design, and not "is true to real life physics",), I don't mind seeing a 110-lb, lithe human female wield 2 battle-axes, really. I'm not going to say there's no possible way for that to exist in a well-designed manner. Maybe it still wouldn't fit well in P:E, though. I wouldn't really know without being one of the folks designing the whole game.

That's absolutely correct, but you still run into a problem when you have wide branching options. If you have 5 optional quests open up at once (as opposed to a much more linear restriction on quest/story progression), how do you make sure they're all tailored to the player's level (as they could be done in any order) without forcibly keeping the player from progressing past that level for the duration of all 5 quests OR implementing some form of scaling to some degree? And if you never have multiple options like that, how do you keep the game from being too linear? I don't disagree that there shouldn't be much focus on making sure it's completely and utterly impossible for the player to EVER affect the relative difficulty of a quest or challenge by going out of their way to do extra stuff and level up more. And in the case of the naturally-linear progression of the main quest (branch-possibilities included... I just mean the sequence of things, i.e. you can't battle the last boss before you deal with the bandits blocking the road to the 2nd city), you're absolutely right that those should be appropriately balanced based on the average rate that the player should have/could have progressed at the point that each subsequent section becomes accessible.

I understand drawing upon soul power to, say, possess the strength required to wield heavier weapons as if they were regular weapons, but not to somehow phase the 4-foot blades of through your allies whilst annihilating your enemies in a frenzy of twirly death. That seems a bit forced. "Uhh... because you have soul powers?" doesn't seem like a good thing to use to justify just anything. You still have to maintain a believable set of limitations.

I definitely think the puzzles should be less logic/math-based and more game-environment-based. This seems to work better for a multitude of players, rather than being okay-to-awesome for the logic/math lovers and frustrating-to-hellish for everyone else. You can use the positioning and/or sequence of symbols/tiles/whathaveyou, and your puzzles are allowed to be decently complex while functioning off of simple concepts (like lining up a picture, etc.) Things that require observation of the specifics presented to figure out how to work towards the solution, then the effort of working toward the solution. I don't think riddles and logic puzzles should be completely absent from the game, or that all puzzles should require hardly any effort (if anything, maybe some alternative way to get past the puzzle, so that your effort can be spent in a way you like more than via puzzle). But, I do think that the solutions to puzzles shouldn't rely too much on outside knowledge or mental prowess. This is akin to having pop trivia in the game, or "twitch-based" precision challenges at which FPS vets would excel and other players would be filled with frust-rage-tion.

They could always compromise with "UNITERNITY ENGINE!" I like that better than "Etunity," as name-splices go.

Players can do whatever they want with loot. But without any kind of limitation, the loot system just becomes a money grind. "Do I pick this up? OF COURSE I do, as it has currency value! So I want as much of everything as possible, all the time!" If you don't address that in any way, shape, or form, it's just plain cluttered and pointless. You might as well take away all item sell-values and just implement a means of generating time-increment-based income, while items only serve practical purposes (equipment, potions, etc.). Because, what fun is having the option to loot or not to loot adding when you're just going to loot as much as possible, anyway? The point is, it's not about "degenerative player behavior." This just happens to show up alongside smallish design holes. Of course, loot limitations only addresses part of the problem. The other problem is the infinite value of all loot. You could do things like make basic-quality swords and armor only valuable for their materials via salvage or something. Whatever the means, it's just something else that's part of the loot/inventory/item system that must be balanced, and it can be done anywhere from wonderfully to terribly. As far as the purpose of the mule? Well, at the very least, having the mere visual of a pack animal adds to the immersion/believability of the exaggerated size of the stash (if it's going to be pretty big), and supports the "you can only access in places where you'd safely camp" notion. That value is no different from the difference in foliage in environment art in one area as opposed to another. It doesn't serve any MECHANICAL purpose. The game would function just fine without it. But it sure is a more elegant way to suggest you're in a different area, instead of using the exact same environments everywhere *coughDRAGONAGE2cough*... Also, there are other possibilities with a mule, as opposed to a visually unrepresented stash. These possibilities present some hurdles to be dealt with, and some benefits to gameplay depth as well. Which is exactly why we're discussing said possibilities. So, to say "this is quite LITERALLY a pointless suggestion" is just as silly as anyone saying "Obsidian MUST work in a pack mule, or the game will actually activate Skynet and we'll all die!"

... Myyy goddd... I think we've just broken the first rule of Forum Club... ... NEVER come to a mutual understanding. o_o It appears the Mayans were 2 days off in their estimation of the apocalypse.

But it's heavily frowned upon to train my REAL pet to aid me in my adventuring and slaying of bandits! -____-

Well, look at it this way... Say you don't want to swap weapons and armor every time you fight a different cluster of foes. Also, for the purposes of this example, you are flying solo (expanding the example to cover the entire party would take forever, and the point remains the same, I promise.) So, pretend you love light armor and swords, for whatever reason. You encounter a group of enemies... an un-armored Mage (magic), a lightly armored archer (piercing), and a heavily armored greatsword guy (he sure is great at being a sword-guy). Let's just assume for now that spell damage always ignores armor and not worry about the possibility of magic resistances, just to keep it simple. Well, you're probably going to want to go for the Mage first, and the archer second, and avoid the heavy guy, in general. The mage and the archer will require a much shorter duration to dispatch, because of your damage effectiveness against them, so you don't have to worry about equipment swapping to make sure they aren't 7,000 times more difficult to take on than with "the right" gear. The heavy guy is going to take a bit more doing, and you'll probably have to utilize your combat skills as best you can to keep him away from you (as he has a large, slashing weapon that will ultra-harm you, and you can't do full damage to his armor.) If you were, instead, a heavy armor guy with a mace, 'cause you just like that sort of thing, and you encountered the same group, you'd probably go in the reverse order (or you might take the mage first, still, because of his full-damage capability). So, it might be more difficult to take him on with your mace, as opposed to a sword, like before, but the strategic decisions involved with getting to him and taking him down FIRST and as quickly as possible sort of alleviate that difference. And now, say you're the latter guy, but you encounter THREE mages. o_O, oooOOOOoooooh... this is gonna be bad, right? Well, I'm going to cheat here and break my "you're alone instead of a party" bit, because my example, whilst serving the simplicity of my point, cannot directly address this bit... Since you WILL have a party (assuming you don't bestow upon yourself, willingly, the challenge of taking on the whole game alone), the odds of you having 6 heavily-armored mace-wielders in the face of a group of nothing-but-mages (who we're still assuming will bypass ALL your armor, and are unarmored so that it would be much better to have swords) are pretty much zero. And, if you DO have that party, then, well, you chose to restrict yourself that hard. They can't design the game to where you can simply drop a live, struggling fish onto the keyboard and its keystrokes will get you through combat. It's going to require some amount of effort, in one form or another. So, you're going to have elements in your party that are GREAT at taking care of the mages (such as a mage, or people who actually have a sword and aren't wearing bulky heavy armor). So, whether you put more work into making sure you carry around the proper equipment all the time and match it to the occasion, or you put the work in later to make sure you strategically pick your targets and have less-situationally-effective members support the others, one way isn't really BETTER than the other. Unless they completely misbalance the game... 8P Equipment is just one factor in combat, so you'll always have your class abilities and positional strategy to use to offset "our equipment is hindering our ability to swiftly smite!" circumstances.

That was an EXCELLENT example and point, 8D. I'm in mild awe right now. I mean, I hadn't really thought about that type of thing, specifically. But, what I was intending to get at doesn't exclude uses of easier combat for specific reasons. I only meant to observe the fact that, in a game set up as RPGs are, with complex combat systems and character progression being fundamental pylons of the game design, you have to maintain some semblence of combat challenge that generally increases as the story progresses. In other words, purposefully-challenging encounter A takes place before purposefully-challenging encounter B, which comes before purposefully-challenging encounter C. All three encounters (whether they're mandatory story encounters, optional combat challenges as part of some artifact hunt, etc.) should, at whatever time they're undertaken (in chronological order, though) provide a purpose for the progression of the combat capabilities of the player's characters. There could (and should) be encounters in between that aren't intended to do so, and instead support some purpose other than mathematically-represented character progression (such as amazing story segments, other gameplay systems, etc.) Also, I know you're not saying that, in a cRPG, NO combat encounters need to challenge the prowess of the player characters. I just also find argument intellectually stimulating, heh. ^_^

Good point. It seems there was a comment about no one who isn't a Rogue being quite the absolute best at lockpicking, etc., in update #36. So, it's the same idea you're suggesting. Which I think is a very good, really. I think it's more a matter of bad implementations in the past. It's really hard to gauge it with math ("what percentage of effectiveness should we allow a Barbarian to have at lore and alchemy?", for example) and call it a day. You often run into a system that says "Hey, Barbarian! You can totally pick some more potion-making instead of some more skull-demolishing. Of course, A) you'll be delaying progression in what Barbarism is all about, and B) your potions will pretty much never be useful." The system wasn't really designed with the effects of a Barbarian taking Alchemy skills in mind, but then it was decided that more options were better than fewer, so it was tossed in and "controlled" with a hard skill cap. Obviously all the bad implementations weren't quite so simplified, but I'm wordy enough without citing all the variants from that basic concept from 5 different sources, in MLA format. The point is, you don't want to offer an option that's basically a lose-lose situation. But, then, in that same example, if you simply don't allow the Barbarian to even TAKE Alchemy or Lore or anything that isn't femur-fracturingly applicable, then you basically make it so that a Barbarian has no variance. Of course, a lot still depends on other factors. Take lockpicking. If the Rogue's the best (100%) at it, and a Priest can only get to pretty good (80%) at it, then there should be a reason to pick 80% lockpick skill (as opposed to there being absolutely no reason to pick it... I'm not saying there should be a reason to always pick it.) This is affected by chest placement, and the progression of chest skill checks, and the usefulness of chest contents at various levels, etc. Which is really just balancing, when it comes down to it. But, since the class mechanics (and limitations) exist within pretty much every other element of the entire game, you have to build these mechanics and decide how to introduce variation accordingly. And, I understand the idea of the Priest's use of lockpicking being moot because it's a party-based game, and the Rogue will always be better. But, with, what... 12 classes? 13? More than 6 classes... and 6 party members total, and at least one NPC companion per class? That gives you many feasible party builds that don't involve a Rogue, but you may still want to be ABLE to pick locks, and you accept that you won't get to pick all of them. That just seems like a very inefficient use of content to give people the viable option of having an entire party makeup with no Rogue (maybe they just don't prefer the other class mechanics) and then have them still go through the exact same world FULL of locked things controlling characters who all just shrug at one another at the mystery mechanism that is a lock. You'd pretty much hafta severely lessen the significance of getting past locked things, or balance every class-ability-restricted segment of the game as a fully standalone, optional part of a far less homogenous game world. Imagine if only certain classes could even engage in dialogue (much less gain access to more dialogue options). Yeah, I'm sorry about that. I didn't mean to say that an alchemist party member who pretty much couldn't even fight has absolutely no use or place in any RPG gameplay, whatsoever. And I totally understand the value of such a particular balance of skillset and restriction in a party member, given the right gameplay environment to support it. It's really just a matter of other design foundations in P:E that we know aren't malleable enough to support that type of character without making it a completely different game.

Well, it's just one facet of the maintenance of challenge in an RPG. I agree with you, in a way, because there's not really anything mandating a situation in which level-scaling would be necessary. If you're buying lumber to build a structure, you often have to buy it in a certain size, then cut it down to the size needed. An adjustment is necessary in the length of the lumber. But, in a video game, you're creating the virtual lumber from scratch. The developers create the relation between the difficulty of the enemies and the capability of the player characters. Put simply, if you want a hostile creature not to become ridiculously weak (warranting either scaling, or mandatory retirement from the rest of the progression of the game), you prevent the player from becoming "too powerful," and the enemy remains relatively powerful. It's not even a matter of "Should we really limit the player's power like that?," because it's limited no matter what. The leveling/progression system itself does that. How many hit points you get, how much damage you deal, what kinds of attacks you gain access to, how many party members you can have, how much experience you gain for things, how many tasks are available that actually grant you experience... Every time you add one of these things to the scale, it's going to slump to one side or the other. So, once you get them all on there, you figure out how to shift what around, and adjust their weight to get the best balance you can. It's obviously not easy, but a balance achieved at that stage negates the need for scaling. That being said, certain game design decisions prevent a good enough balance from being achieved. In a game, sometimes the figurative weight of certain gameplay elements and mathematical systems fluctuates from situation to situation, causing the scale to lurch and sway. It may stabilize itself after some time, but intelligently-implemented scaling of certain values can be used to hold that scale steadier when the things upon it fluctuate in weight between various situations. The only situation that comes to mind, which I've mentioned before, is one in which an enemy plays an important part in a greater portion of your game's story than a static level rating allows them to. This forces you to either limit something like bandits to ONLY level-appropriate little chunks of your game world/story, OR introduce a "new enemy" (i.e. a different group of bandits who are magically 10 levels higher than the previous bandits you fought, whom you'll never see again), which is basically the same thing as scaling, just with prettier wrapping.

Oh don't be preposterous! You don't need massive horns and spikes to be a badass! For example, a Rogue who uses poisons could have extraordinarily vibrantly-colored equipment, to denote his poisonous nature... like a tree frog, u_u.

It's a very similar dilemma, mechanics-wise, as in the examples of bad dual-wield or even just combat skill implementations. What is your Ranger's wolf (for example) bringing to the table that simply adding damage, attack speed, and abilities to the Ranger, himself, isn't? That's the important question. Pets need to provide something unique to the mix, rather than simply boosting values that already existed and splitting player control between two entities. I'm all for them being almost a part of your character (it would definitely fit with the... soul... of the game? *chuckles heartily whilst adjusting monocle*), but they need to be more than simply a fraction, or a multiplier. I really don't want to see another "my pet is an ability with hitpoints" situation, haha. I'm pretty excited about what was said about Wizard's familiars in update #36. If they die, the Wizard suffers damage and cannot re-summon them until the encounter is over (pretty D&Dish, but a good means of having a reason to care what happens to them). AND, a Wizard can cast spells using the familiar as the spell origin (meaning you can be 50 feet away from a group of bandits, and hit them with a 10-foot-range spell if your familiar is close to them.) AND, it seems their presence will passively affect friendlies (positively) and hostiles (negatively). Boom... useful pet, and one I care about keeping alive and using strategically. If they can work in some pretty cool "personality" (for lack of a better word) and some story relevance (as opposed to just background lore about Wizards having familiars), I'll be ecstatic. But, they're doing a pretty good job with familiars already. I have to assume they're at least going to try to implement all pets this well.

Haha. "Introducing the What Is Love DLC for Project Eternity! Adds in 12 exciting new NPCs, all with their very own romance dialogue options! You get an achievement for hooking up with all 12! 8D" I'd say if it's sprinkles on the cake, it's definitely not worth it. If it's a different ingredient in the batter recipe, then go for it.

The other stuff doesn't necessarily "lead to" combat. It exists alongside it. A quest might involve combat, but there will be paths through dialogue that lead to the absence of combat, where combat would've been with different dialogue choices. Also, regarding stealth, you yourself just stated that stealth is sometimes used to "avoid," as in "to not partake in." If stealth can be used to avoid combat altogether (which it can in certain scenarios), then it isn't inherently a part of combat. Stealth is merely the art of remaining undetected. Not "the art of remaining undetected only whilst slaying things." Lots of things factor into combat, and they should. No one's disagreeing with you there. But, I don't understand what you're suggesting that's any different from "Things should affect combat, wherever applicable, and these things should be well-implemented and balanced." I mean, if the only thing that mattered about quest dialogue was its effect on combat, then the depth of dialogue would be moot (which it is not). The only thing that would matter would be the outcome. You have to balance anything non-combat with its effects on combat in mind, and you have to balance all things combat with non-combat systems in mind. You seem to be suggesting that, since combat situations will take up a greater percentage of the total gameplay time, that we need to worry less about the impact of other gameplay elements on the game as an entire unit and focus solely on making sure everything supports the crap out of combat. Maybe I'm the only one misunderstanding you.

^ Yeah, the inventory thing is GENIUS! You may not be able to access some things until you get back to town/a camp spot, but at least your ability to TRAVEL to said accessy place at more than a snail crawl is not impeded,

Firstly, *_____* ... ABSORB ALL THE INFOS! I know this baby's still in its infancy, but I'm LOVING how much thought is going into the strategic nature of all the systems. Keep it up! And have a lovely several holiday weeks in your magical elfhomes! ^_^ Based upon his mention of "camp," I'd say that there will be limited times when you can access your stash whilst still away from a town or other such form of civilization. Whether rest spots and camp spots will be one in the same... who knows. But I'm sure it'll be to inventory access as resting will be to combat readiness replenishment (Health, highest-level-available spells, familiar, etc.). This is speculation based on incomplete hard details, of course. 8P Easy does it. They didn't say they were telling us ALL of the available variants of the classes. This is just the fundamental ability set prototype for the 4 basic classes. It sounds like they're planning on a pretty wide range of variance in the specific progression you can choose for each class (Like how Josh hinted at how Wizards' straight-up combat effectiveness can be bolstered heavily as an alternative to having them rely on limited-cast active abilities.)

Yeah, I get that. I think they just want to make sure that you're not restricted to having a character who's all but useless in combat just because you wanted to fully explore alchemy. Alchemy and combat can co-exist peacefully in the game, so they want characters to be able to be viable at both. The point limitations for 2 pools can still be balanced enough to make sure you can't be a master alchemist AND swordsman AND bowman AND nimble, stealthy lockpicker AND enchanter... etc. Fully pursuing alchemy shouldn't inherently prevent you from holding your own in combat. At the very least, your masterful skill in Alchemy should allow that character to perform extra, supportive actions and/or use potions and mixtures more effectively in combat. You don't want him so restricted that he becomes an Alchemy vendor who happens to travel around with you, is all. I know what you mean about player's taste, and if you want to build a character like that, you probably can. I fully understand wanting to, also, even if I most likely wouldn't do so. That's true. I mean, if it wasn't, then that design would be lopsided (the points would have different values depending on what you spent them on... kind of like a sword and a twig both costing 100 gold.) But, think of it this way. In a system in which all the points are in one pool, imagine you gain 10 skill points per level. Let's assume that whatever other mechanics and factors are in your RPG, this point value is perfectly balanced. Now, suppose you simply cut them in half, and say "you can only spend 5 of these on combat skills, and 5 on non-combat skills." If you just left it completely as-is after simply splitting them, then yes... you'd have some issues, because the effectiveness of the skills would already have been balanced against the single pool of points (there'd be a much different relationship between the number of points spent in combat skills versus the number of points spent in non-combat skills.) But, with the split, the effectiveness of the spent points in each category will be rebalanced accordingly. Sawyer's statements regarding how dialogue will be handled suggest he wants stats to play a significant part in things (A), including non-dialogue skills. To exactly what degree, only time will tell. I don't know about "derived from" though. I think it'll be more that INT, for example, will provide a bonus to the effectiveness of the usage of an INT-based skill, rather than to its level. I.e. it might be easier to brew potions, or require fewer ingredients because your INT is ultra-high, but I'm not so sure about anything like a skill level cap based on stat values. I think they want the only restriction to be "You can only be 100% at so many things," in lieu of the typical "you can be pretty good at some things, but only a different class can be REALLY good at non-combat skills available to any class." (B) and © seem to be addressed by the same thing. I think there'll most likely be more than 6 non-combat skills, and the points will be balanced by the maximum number of points that can be obtained in the game. It probably won't be possible to max out on multiple non-combat skills. There might even be something along the lines of caps once you max one out (the same thing could be true of combat skills), so that a 2nd one can only be raised to 60% or-so, and, after, a third to 30%, etc. You could still spread them out in such a system, assuming minor benefits could be gained from a variety of lower skills, but perhaps only 15% per skill if you spread them across every single one (just for example numbers). Heh, I'm with you on that one. Such implementations might have been pushing the bounds of code complexity 18 years ago, but we can definitely do better nowadays (if it's decided to issue them separately in any instances.)

^ Interesting. I wasn't trying to be difficult with semantics or anything, I just really didn't know for sure. I figure it's entirely possible, with a sword-breaker, in certain circumstances. But, I figure usually the opponent's grip is going to be weaker than the temper of their weapon's blade. The leverage force applied to the blade seems like it would always be more powerful than the force holding the hilt-end in place. *shrug*. Just a mildly-educated guess, really.

^ Yeah. From what's been said, it sounds like they aren't trying to get rid of the entire healing mechanic, altogether. They just want it to be a more strategic support mechanic, rather than a sustained battle role. More situationally beneficial than always-beneficial.

I always thought sword "breaker" was referring to "breaking" one's offensive effectiveness with a sword, or "breaking" a sword attack/stroke. I mean, I'm well aware that blades can be broken. I just didn't think a sword breaker was designed to actually break swords themselves. Now I'm quite curious, haha.

^ True. I suppose I should have said "the only thing pertinent to this topic." 8P Although... maybe we should just have a hyperbolic time chamber in the stronghold, and the ability to alter gravity! 8D. Because that wouldn't be a bad idea.

Well, you have to figure the people of Preternia (my own personal code-name for the game world) have SOME kind of hat-fashion for the social elite. And canes would be a common tool for simultaneously aiding in traversing uneven surfaces (which would probably be much more prevalent at the time) AND demonstrating the extent of your wealth via the fact that you use a walking aid made out of ultra-rare pegasus hooves all willy nilly... Also, you could have TWO monocles... a stereocle, if you will. Really, though, I could see some kind of high-society event infiltration (EVENTFILTRATION) being a refreshing break from the typical "we're always adventuring around with all our awesome adventuring gear, and thus have no need for a cane to conceal a blade" routine of RPGs. It's kinda like the "get captured and figure out how to escape without the use of your trusty equipment" scenarios of a lot of RPGs. It would most likely be a very story-centric, temporary piece of the game.