Endrosz

I finished a fun Metroidvania-style platformer called Hell Yeah!: The Wrath of The Dead Rabbit. The main course was defeating about 100 mini-bosses, each one has unique shape, animation, attacks, and also a name, a real name (the entire game takes place in Hell, and everyone's a damned soul) and a short bio, all of those collected into a Codex. This one made me laugh out loud: (old nostalgic fart voice) Back in my day, when we had B-sides, son...

Just for the record, the Troika RPGs, Arcanum and ToEE, had armor in different sizes. Arcanum had 3 sizes, small for gnomes and halflings, large for half-ogres, normal for everyone else. ToEE had 2, it didn't have large characters as playable. I did add some color to the game, but I can't say they were a whole lot better with that degree of realism added -- nevertheless, it already happened.

They term you're looking for is nomancer.

There is an EULA you sign, and it states LOUD AND CLEAR what the consequences are for exploiting. and what exploiting means. If you come across an exploit, it's your DUTY to report it immediately, similar to reporting felonies as a citizen. Abusing it just adds to the offense, but not reporting it is already an EULA violation. There is even a damn button for reporting in modern MMOs, you don't need to go to a support site outside of the game. When a similar thing happened in Guild Wars 2 during the first Wintersday in Dec '12, they made a quantity split to offer some leniency over what's written in the EULA: players who created less than 500 duped objects were only banned for 3 days. Perma-ban was only for more than 500 dupes. At that level of loophole abuse, you can't really defend with 'oh I didn't know what was going on, I was just trying it for funsies!'. You knew perfectly well what was going on, and that's why you did it over and over like a Duracell bunny. Re: Zenimax didn't do its job, it's their fault! Putting the EULA aside for a moment, It is absolutely unreasonable to expect a game with a source code upwards of 10 million lines -- that is to say, MMOs -- to be exploit-proof. From what I hear (I don't play it myself), compared to Skyrim, ESO is in a pretty good place when it comes to bugs and exploits.

I agree, that's a nice short summary. The offense got less absolute, but so did the defense.

I think I understand where you come from, and don't think you're overly picky, but I can give you no consolation: it's just the way things are/will be in Eternity. If you want a sorcerer-type character, your best bet is a cypher, I think. An ice sorcerer though -- yea, the game won't offer that, at least not as a playable character. You win some, you lose some, sorry.

I didn't want to make an impression that emergent AI is some magic wand which insta-solves all of the deeper problems. Working out the AI for the command layer(s) for a new combat system takes a lot of iteration, you can't just get it right for the first time, no matter how experienced you are. You're also absolutely right that lowering the frequency of position evaluation has its own set of problems. I've seen first hand that if the tick interval is too low, then the AI can get into an oscillation, where it paces back and forth between starting two things, and finishing neither. I spent about 4 years creating AI brains for Kohan games, one of my favorite games of all time, and there was a valuable for setting the tick interval: pure experimentation showed that the best value is about 2-3 seconds. Anything lower than that gives you worse results. I don't mean to say that this is a universal constant for every game, just to show that there is some optimal value. But this is where having multiple layers help you: if the system is configured properly, the stability of the high-level goals should "even out" the anomalies of the lower level "selfish" decision-making. If level 2 still gives you "jitters" like constant retreating or running back and forth, then it's time create level 3 with even higher-level goals. It's not an infinite loop: at some finite level, you should be able to match the human decision-making process. Honestly, though, I don't want to TALK about this any more. Those years I spent with Kohan are long gone by, and I'm itching to DO something like that again. Where are my scripts, Dr. Watson? My mind is ready! When my AIs have managed to beat me on Hard difficulty, having a bit of economic advantage (normal difficulty was hopeless for them), I was so happy! I want to that experience that again. Also, juanval, a big thank you for opening this topic! I really enjoyed this conversation!

^ The Black Pudding's metal-destroying ability was implemented Eye of the Beholder 2, and I vaguely remember seeing a few in Temple of Elemental Evil, in the later Temple levels? They're not very obscure, thanks to being favored by a lot of GM, not just yours. If it destroys your precious magical loot, you'll remember it for sure.

It's hard because the goals you set are too high-level and too long-term to calculate and execute in one fell swoop. You need to break the down the goals into more frequently executed smaller ones that, when chained together, have a much better chance of yielding the expected results. Breaking the the problem into smaller parts is a powerful and oft-used tool in mathematics. -- Getting from my position to an enemy position shouldn't be a singular action. Every few steps, there should be a re-evaluation, and if things changed (the player moved a blocking unit into my path, I got Hobbled, reducing my movement speed, etc.), my actions should respond to that. Don't write AI based on getting to a certain enemy as a singular action, write AI for taking a few steps for a desired goal, whether closing in on an enemy, or flanking one, or trying to avoid the melee control zone of enemy lineholders, and so on. That's manageable, the response to player tactic will come sooner, and it'll make the player's job a lot harder. -- IMO emergent AI is the best way to implement high-level gameplay concepts in games. It works by communication, every entity telling all the others and its "superiors" (which are usually virtual, not tied to actual units, only exist for calculation reasons) about what it wants to do, and then a negotiation process determines which action is taken in the end. If you want to push calculations like "evade low-value defenders" onto a self-contained unit AI, it'll be complicated and probably still easily exploited. If instead you create a higher, emergent layer above the individual units, then those units only worry about low-level goals, the high level goals are only a means of assigning relative values to actions. It's somewhat similar to actual, real-life small scale combat: you have your orders ("take that bunker atop that hill"), but those orders don't tell you how to do that. So the soldiers in the platoon talk to each other about how to best solve that. The command only gives directives, it does not provide step-by-step solutions. Here's a textual mock-up, ignoring the communication with the command layer to make it easier to follow: Unit Crushy 1: I want to move forward, I see a squishy target, no obstructions. I rate this action 8/10 according to high-level goal "gank enemy squishies". Unit Crushy 2: I want to move forward, I see a squishy target, no obstructions. I rate this action 8/10 according to high-level goal "gank enemy squishies". Unit Shooty: I want to shoot. But I also see threats. Three enemy units are trying to reach me by flanking to the left, based on their current movement. Crushy 1, you're close to their path, I rate your interception 9/10 according to high-level goal "protect our own squishies". Crushy 2, you're somewhat close to their path, I rate your interception 7/10 according to high-level goal "protect our own squishies". Unit Crushy 1: 9>8. Will do. Unit Crushy 2: 7<8. Ignoring request. Unit Shooty: If Crushy 1 will intercept, then I will shoot. End of negotiation, final actions: Unity Crushy 1: Moving to intercept enemy gankers. Unity Crushy 2: Moving to gank enemy squishy. Unit Shooty: Shooting. Neither the Crushies nor Shooty "thinks" about which high-level goal is more important. Those values are given to them by AI in the superior/command layer. The values are not static, they are evaluated in every tick/heartbeat by a similar negotiation process in the command layer. In that layer, the entities represent the high-level goals, and they "argue" about which one is more important right now. For a tactical game like Eternity, two layers should be enough. For a strategy game, even more layers could be necessary to create a good competition for a human player. ---- The last time I wrote about good computer game AI, I gave praise to Stardock's Galactic Civilizations series (hi Brad Wardell,,one of the very few people in the games industry who creates smart AI), but forgot to namedrop the other company which cares about AI: Arcen Games -- and their flagship game AI War. If you want to see amazing, multi-layered emergent AI in action, where every ship in a fleet of thousands has its own tiny AI, and which responds very well to your actions, try it. Warning: the game is addictive. I caaaaan't waaaaait to delve into Eternity's AI!

So, it's "here's my favorite piece of music, please use it as inspiration" time? Okay then: Guild Wars 1 had a fantastic soundtrack by Jeremy Soule, and some of the tracks were so good that they were re-used in Guild Wars 2, which is very, very rare (and no, it wasn't a budget issue, lol). My personal fav is Tasca's Demise, which is accompanied by falling snow and snow-covered landscapes in both games. Edit: Also, anything by Joe Hisaishi, Studio Ghibli's house composer.

There are two opposite schools of thought on this, and you hear both from developers on a regular basis. -- Release as early as possible to judge reactions and gather ideas/feedback from players. If players generally don't like the basic concept and gameplay, why bother with bugfixing and polish which costs money? If you spend on development, spend it wisely. -> Minecraft, Early Access games, etc. OR -- Polish as much as you can to make the best possible first impression on players and the press. I think that narrative- and atmosphere-driven games suffer a lot if the bugs break the progress, pacing and immersion often, so polish is advised before release. -> Telltale story games, Bioshocks, Mass Effects, etc. I think both have some merit, and choosing between the two depends on the circumstances. For example, if a game delivers fresh, interesting gameplay, and blows the players' minds with new, exciting experiences, then players are more willing to overlook its flaws and wait for patches. If it's an established, familiar concept, like "corridor shooter", then bugs will earn you a lot of complaints because you have less initial "goodwill". RPGs have really long tails when it comes to sales, and have many interlocking systems which require a lot of iteration to get right, so I think the first stance fits RPGs better. Get fans with what you have, then continue to polish the game. You can look at BG1-2 fix packs and tweak packs to see how many issues were not fixed even in after-release patches -- the community took care of those. And the BGs are considered "gold standards" by many. And I remember quite clearly that Fallout 1 and 2, another pair of revered classics, were buggy messes initially. Specifically, Fallout 2's savegame system was so broken (the file sizes were bloating and load times were increasing with each save and without limit, eating up your hard drive in a major way -- remember, it's the middle of the '90s, not today) that they rewrote it completely 3-4 months after the release, which invalidated all savegames, including my game-in-progress. And who remembers those initial months now, really, besides old fossils like me? The people who played the first two Fallouts as retro RPGs after the 3rd came out certainly don't.

I've been playing On The Rain-slick Precipice of Darkness 3 recently, and I think I have discovered the secret of the Deep Stash(TM!) It's pelicorsairs that haul back the loot while you're adventuring -- there is no other logical explanation!

She's cold, because she's an undead.

...wrong button...

No one said it is for "realism" (I prefer verisimilitude), that's just a nice side effect. If you always start battles fully prepared, then all fights must be designed with that in mind, like in Aarklash: Legacy, which is my favorite tactics game from the last few years. It's a valid game design choice, but Eternity's designers chose another path. Having attrition mechanics in Eternity means that moderately challenging fights still matter if you lose Health or use per-rest abilities in the process. Many classic RPGs which normally allowed resting had extra challenging zones where you couldn't rest, and had to win all battles in a single go. It's a great way to require strategic power conservation from players, which you don't have in games like Aarklash: Legacy. Also, attrition increases the tension of every challenge that bleeds out the party, no matter how small the loss is. Okay, we won this battle, survived this trap... but do we have enough strength left to prevail until the very end of the adventure? Attrition paves the way for memorable stories: "And all I had was a single Melf's Acid Arrow, and two of us were knocked out, but that last spell finally dropped Big Foozle and we won!"

I see. I don't remember seeing that option when confirming my pledge, but I could have easily missed it. Okay, I'll try that reset via support.

I'm happy with almost everything that goes on with the development of Pillars of Eternity. I have only one request. If and when the game gets into beta, please allow the lower tier backers to buy into the beta. Currently, I have to fork out $125 to get that. I have considered buying that package several times, but it's just too much. I don't need the other stuff in that package, just beta access, to delve into modding ASAP. inXile offered for a limited time a special upgrade for Wasteland 2 backers: 10 bucks to add beta access to a lower tier. That was all right, I'm willing to pay that much. Please consider offering the same beta upgrade when Eternity enters beta phase.

Reminder, because a few people in this thread have the wrong idea about how the stash in Eternity works: Your inventory, which you can access anytime outside combat, is limited. Your quick items, which you can access anytime including combat, is very limited. The unlimited stash is only accessible from "home". While you're away from home, you can put stuff in the stash, but cannot take them out.

You CAN make the AI smart, but: -- It takes a long time, many iterations. You can only start developing the after all of the systems are finalized (if you don't to want to waste man-hours), that means late in the development cycle. -- That developer time is also costly, and that money is usually spent elsewhere, see below. -- The result will be appreciated by only a small portion of the players. In the case of an RPG, everyone cries out for more companions, more wilderness areas, more side quests, more quest solutions, more branching choices, more skill and spells, but very few people ask for a good/better AI. See this forum as a direct evidence. -- As a consequence of all of the above, few people in the game software industry have expertise with adaptive neural nets, fuzzy logic, emergent small entity AI, and so on, because there's little demand for these skills in this industry segment. But at least one of the former is required to write a decent AI FRAMEWORK. It's the framework that counts, what is possible within it; "teaching" the AI the specifics of a game simply takes time, it's not that difficult. I have studied neural nets and fuzzy logic during my university, later I've created AI "brains" for strategy games for several years, and of this is a fascinating subject that few people bother with. If you want a game with good AI, try the Galactic Civilizations series. The AI there is ruthless, efficient, and diplomatic negotiations in GalCiv is almost like talking to an intelligent opponent, who has agendas, knows what's worth what, makes counteroffers (very refreshing!) etc.

I played pen-and-paper AD&D set in the Time of Troubles with a cleric/mage, so I know all about wild magic effects. My favorite one was when using a Wand of Lightning in a desparate situation against giants, it produced a flock of butterflies streaming from my character's mouth (effect 34 on the wild magic surge table). We all laughed our asses off. But wild magic has nothing to do with metamagic. Metamagic is: 1. A desired extra effect (e. g. augmented duration) 2. For a corresponding price (spell levels in the case of DnD3). You control metamagic. You don't control wild magic, that's the whole point of it.

...and I just thought of another classic game, a very well known and well respected game, which offered unlimited stash space: X-Com! It was called "base inventory", but it offered the same functionality. After a successful mission, all objects on the ground, alien corpses, and even UFO components and the elerium fuel from the fuel tank were automagically moved back to the base's storage unit. It just happened. Because the transporter, barely accommodating the regular human payload as is standard for military transports, sure as hell couldn't carry an extra load of 10-20 alien corpses plus all the components recovered from the UFO...

Your backpacks will be full of rather uninteresting, but somewhat valuable loot anyway, whether it's limited or unlimited. I remember hauling back long swords and chain mails to Phlan in Pool of Radiance 25 years ago. I remember hauling back guns and stuff in varying condition back to a merchant in Fallout: New Vegas a few years ago. For me, anything that reduces menial tasks is a godsend. By the way, Stonekeep had a magic scroll as an inventory which had limitless carrying capacity, and it didn't break the game in any way, including immersion. About the reasoning, let's listen to Assertion Twelve once more:

The metamagic idea refuses to drop from my mind for several days now, and it occurred to me that there was a universal metamagic system in a recent ARPG: The Incredible Adventures of Van Helsing. -- Every character, not matter the the class or build, has a Rage pool which works as expected: you get Rage by killing mobs, and Rage fades out slowly when you're not in combat. -- For every active skill, there are a few "metamagic mods" that cost a skill point to learn. These apply mods to the skill like larger area of effect, an additional effect, and so on. Each has associated Rage cost, the better the effect, the larger the cost. -- There is an interface element where you create a preset combo of mods for your active skills. In combat you can apply the combo with the press of a button: it consumes the Rage, and the next use of the skill will be enhanced with the preset metamagic mods in the combo. What I like about this system was that it applied to every active skill, not just certain classes or skills. Essentially, it's a skill tree multiplier, making the game more diverse without making it overcrowded. Also, since the mods are tied and tailored to the skills, there are no balance issues arising from certain combinations of skills and (universal) mods. What I dislike is the skill point cost, similar to metamagic costing feats in DnD3. Again, Rage, which isn't an on-demand resource like mana, is sufficient to balance out the effects. The other thing I disliked that Rage generation was based on kills only, not on-hit and on-being-hit (preferably both). That means that Rage is not reliable as a resource in boss or difficult elite pack fights. I would love to see something like this in the future included in Eternity's skill system.

Great news! A game like TToN needs wildly creative people like him!