My fwiw kickstarter economic analysis regarding the rift between the traditionalists and evolutionists

[Jaesun]

7:06 An example we came up with for wizards, we are not sure we are going to do this [site example]. This example sounds interesting and very BG2/IWD like.

[Monte Carlo]

Please dont go, Metiman

 

For I am your biggest fan

 

Your loss would create a barren place

 

Just because you prefer turn-based

 

(Wailing guitar solo)

 

Please stay, just for a day

 

While we see if there is a third way

 

I hate to see how badly you frown

 

When you hear of Biowarian spell cool-downs...

 

(Dirge-like wailing by vestal virgins, etc).

[MReed]

and here's something you might not know...it's not that us more moderate "traditionalists" (or should i say less insane?) like the way the gaming industry is evolving, it's that we have no goddamned choice or say in the matter...our day is done, aside from a few small projects like this, it's OVER. Learn to move on or just quit gaming.

 

Yeap, I agree -- until the P:E kickstarter, which inspired me to once again hope that the kinds of game that I enjoyed might make a comeback (or, at least, one last gasp before dieing for good). I still hold out some hope that Overhaul Games (BG1:EE / BG2:EE are successful) will produce the kind of games that I'm looking for, so I suppose I haven't yet learned my lesson. Any, hey, the new X-COM is pretty faithful to the original, so it is possible for old-style games to be published in today's market. So, maybe a future kickstarter project will be what I'm looking for.

[Clammo]

I don't really see myself as identified in either category - quite possibly like most folks here. I've pledged, according to your theory, as a Codexian yet shockingly I've enjoyed quite a few Bioware games - okay mostly the old school BG games, and yes I also enjoyed DA:O. I despised DA2 as that really represented a turning point for me in Bioware's "awesome" new wave of gaming - all rushed production values with flash cutscenes in an attempt to cover the obvious huge flaws, and very little in the way of mechanics, style and plot to keep me interested.

 

I also have no massively pre-conceived notions about what must be in the game or else I remove my pledge. The promise of an old school, real time with pause, isometric RPG, alongside the crop of proven developers they're putting together is enough to convince me to take a punt on this. I might not in theory like the sound of all the decisions they're making in the early developmental process, however I trust them enough that generally speaking they'll implement the game mechanics, gameworld and plot in a way that melds together to create a great game. And shockingly that includes the much-maligned romances. No I don't use them in-game, so I'm not sure how that combines with my shameful admission I've enjoyed a few Bioware games. However so long as they're optional I'm accepting of the fact that many people want them included and would add to their enjoyment of the game, without drifting from the original basic old-school concept Obsidian had. The same with guns. I don't like guns in medieval style fantasy settings, in fact they're one of my biggest pet hates. But I'm again trusting that the core premise and design of the game will make me easily overlook this.

 

Maybe I'm unconventional in that I have no real demands to keep my pledge, as old school isometric RPG's are becoming as rare as rocking horse poo, so I'm more than happy to invest and in some small way help try and push this style and genre to the fore once again. Or maybe it's just unrealistic to try and pidgeon-hole people into two distinct camps. I suspect it's a bit of both.

Edited October 6, 2012 by Clammo

[alanschu]

I'm sure Obsidian will still appreciate your sale when you buy it after release

[Clammo]

I don't really see myself as identified in either category - quite possibly like most folks here. I've pledged, according to your theory, as a Codexian yet shockingly I've enjoyed quite a few Bioware games - okay mostly the old school BG games, and yes I also enjoyed DA:O. I despised DA2 as that really represented a turning point for me in Bioware's "awesome" new wave of gaming - all rushed production values with flash cutscenes in an attempt to cover the obvious huge flaws, and very little in the way of mechanics, style and plot to keep me interested.

 

I also have no massively pre-conceived notions about what must be in the game or else I remove my pledge. The promise of an old school, real time with pause, isometric RPG, alongside the crop of proven developers they're putting together is enough to convince me to take a punt on this. I might not in theory like the sound of all the decisions they're making in the early developmental process, however I trust them enough that generally speaking they'll implement the game mechanics, gameworld and plot in a way that melds together to create a great game. And shockingly that includes the much-maligned romances. No I don't use them in-game, so I'm not sure how that combines with my shameful admission I've enjoyed a few Bioware games. However so long as they're optional I'm accepting of the fact that many people want them included and would add to their enjoyment of the game, without drifting from the original basic old-school concept Obsidian had. The same with guns. I don't like guns in medieval style fantasy settings, in fact they're one of my biggest pet hates. But I'm again trusting that the core premise and design of the game will make me easily overlook this.

 

Maybe I'm unconventional in that I have no real demands to keep my pledge, as old school isometric RPG's are becoming as rare as rocking horse poo, so I'm more than happy to invest and in some small way help try and push this style and genre to the fore once again. Or maybe it's just unrealistic to try and pidgeon-hole people into two distinct camps. I suspect it's a bit of both.

you sir, are a filthy BioWarian and exactly what is wrong with everything in the world the gaming industry today...go die in a fire you cooldown whore.

 

Sorry, I would reply appropriately to your comment but I've proved the old adage and blinded myself in a gleeful masturbatory frenzy at the thought of cooldowns so can't really see what you wrote....

[MReed]

7:06 An example we came up with for wizards, we are not sure we are going to do this [site example]. This example sounds interesting and very BG2/IWD like.

 

Sure, it sounds interesting, but you can't get from here to there with the proposed mechanics. Radically different cooldown based mechanics, sure, but not with the rest of what they are proposing.

 

To create situations where players need to conserve resources between combats, it has to be difficult to recover those resources. This difficulty could take many forms, of course -- in a Vancian system, it is based on how easy it is to rest, for example -- but there has to be some player-level cost imposed. For a cooldown system, this would mean that the cooldown times have to be very long: long enough that an "average" player would, playing at an "average" speed, have to go through several different encounters before the first cooldown timer expired.

 

Right of the bat, then, the statement indicating that cooldown timers may expire during unusually long combats (meaning that in those combats, you might cast a high level spell early and be able to cast it again before the end) puts a cap on how long cooldowns can be, and a fairly low cap at that ("paused" time doesn't count towards cooldown time, after all). I can't think of any combat encounter in BG1/BG2/IWD that took as much game time as two normal encounters, much less three.

 

Setting that aside, though (who knows how long they expect the average / long combat encounter to take in game time), the next problem is worse: given that the low level spells can be spammed to your hearts content, the only occasion you might want to pull out the "big guns" is a difficult combat encounter. More, the only time this would become an issue is when several difficult combat encounters occur in immediate proximity, as otherwise, you could just use your "big guns" on all the difficult combat encounters and let them recharge during the intermediate easier encounters. If several difficult combat encounters occurring back-to-back is rare (most likely) then having to make these sorts of decision would be rare as well. If several difficult combat encounters occurring back-to-back is common, then the game balance is poor.

 

Obviously, it is entirely possible that Oblivion has a third choice that makes the points above moot, but... "Trust Oblivion" isn't a good enough argument for me, and I really can't see a way for them to "show their work" to convince me that they have found a third way.

[Monte Carlo]

MReed, I concede as much as I can,

 

That you are the thinking person's Metiman,

 

With your incisive views and old-skool style,

 

I hope you hang around for a while...

 

(Thrash metal interlude)

[JWestfall]

I really want to join one of these new tribes - because I want to fit in and feel that if we are united against a single enemy we can accomplish anything - but I just can't decide which one.

 

This is just as stressful as high school, when I couldn't decide if I wanted to be a jock or an emo, so I ended up being a punkish nerd instead.

[Monte Carlo]

JWestfall, forgive the instrusion,

 

But I feel your pain, anger and confusion,

 

Just stay right here, it isn't hard,

 

For I will sooth you, I'm the forum Bard!

 

(Male-Voice choir warbles manfully, possibly a hymn)

[Merin]

I'm not sure any faction was arguing in favour of cooldowns. In fact, most people were against it...

 

I think, at worst, you had a group of people who weren't for or against it, but indifferent. Maybe some who'd prefer it to Vancian, but that doesn't equate to liking it.

 

For example, I don't want Vancian, I wouldn't mind cool downs depending on how they are implemented. But if it were Vancian I'd still play and enjoy the game despite it, like many years of AD&D games, SSI Gold Box games and IE games.

[metiman]

MC, you are most definitely drunk.

[Ieo]

7:06 An example we came up with for wizards, we are not sure we are going to do this [site example]. This example sounds interesting and very BG2/IWD like.

 

(snip)

Obviously, it is entirely possible that Oblivion has a third choice that makes the points above moot, but... "Trust Oblivion" isn't a good enough argument for me, and I really can't see a way for them to "show their work" to convince me that they have found a third way.

 

To be honest, I don't see why the general idea (which I personally like) couldn't be easily scaled by the three more difficult settings--numbers are more easliy scaled than binary, that's for sure. Then someone might say that 'normal' play shouldn't be diluted to 'require' a more difficult setting--if the very first difficulty setting can significantly increase the cooldowns and such or even remove them entirely, then at least the other two in combination should provide enough challenge for the really hardcore--and I seem to remember an Obsidian comment about allowing players to pick and choose among the difficult modes. Not sure.

 

I'm not sure any faction was arguing in favour of cooldowns. In fact, most people were against it...

 

I think, at worst, you had a group of people who weren't for or against it, but indifferent. Maybe some who'd prefer it to Vancian, but that doesn't equate to liking it.

 

For example, I don't want Vancian, I wouldn't mind cool downs depending on how they are implemented. But if it were Vancian I'd still play and enjoy the game despite it, like many years of AD&D games, SSI Gold Box games and IE games.

 

I'm in the indifferent group, though with the incredibly loud off-topic complaining that derailed my cooldown thread, I began to want Obsidian to implement cooldowns just for that. () I just adapt to whatever magic system is in place for a CRPG. Some things are truly awkward, though--PS:T cut-scenes for the high-level spells? Oof.

[MReed]

7:06 An example we came up with for wizards, we are not sure we are going to do this [site example]. This example sounds interesting and very BG2/IWD like.

 

(snip)

Obviously, it is entirely possible that Oblivion has a third choice that makes the points above moot, but... "Trust Oblivion" isn't a good enough argument for me, and I really can't see a way for them to "show their work" to convince me that they have found a third way.

 

To be honest, I don't see why the general idea (which I personally like) couldn't be easily scaled by the three more difficult settings--numbers are more easliy scaled than binary, that's for sure. Then someone might say that 'normal' play shouldn't be diluted to 'require' a more difficult setting--if the very first difficulty setting can significantly increase the cooldowns and such or even remove them entirely, then at least the other two in combination should provide enough challenge for the really hardcore--and I seem to remember an Obsidian comment about allowing players to pick and choose among the difficult modes. Not sure.

 

Yes, there was a dev post indicating that there would a number of options to set difficulty, and the length of the cooldown timers could definitely be one of them. But simply adding a "Base cooldown length" slider isn't really enough to resolve the issue. The game has to be balanced either with the assumption that "players will have most / all of their replenishable resources available for every encounter" or "players will need to conserve replenishable resources over multiple encounters". A game balanced for "all resources available" becomes insanely difficult when played the other way, and a game balanced for "limited resources" is insanely easy when the situation is reversed.

 

This is, by the way, one of the valid reasons for objecting to rest-spam in IE games: If restspam is possible, then the developers have to create encounters that are challenging to a party healed to 100% with all spells available. If a player (for roleplaying reasons) wishes to not restspam, then they will feel that the game is trying to force them to restspam, by throwing absurdly difficult encounters at them.

 

This is addressable as well, of course -- you could double up every combat encounter in the game, with one set used with low cooldown times, and another set used with high cooldown times -- but you've just dramatically increased your workload. It makes more sense to choose one or the other and balance the game for that, and the other group is just SOL.

[Monte Carlo]

MC, you are most definitely drunk.

 

At least I'm consistent.

[Monte Carlo]

I really wished there was a Vancian On / Vancian Off option just to put this whole thing to bed. I wonder if it would cause significant balance issues or would just be too labour intensive?

[Uomoz]

MC, you are most definitely drunk.

 

At least I'm consistent.

 

I adore this exchange.

[Jaesun]

There are still quite a number of possibilities available with this proposed system of magic. It even could be you can only choose 2 level 4 spells (as a Level 5 Wizard). This still retains a bit of the tactical side of things. That of course would rely on a very robust spell selection that the IE games had.

 

Still one thing not discussed was any ties TO mechanics of the proposed spells system to the now HARD CORE milestone we thankfully made. That also opens the door for even more options.

[Ieo]

To be honest, I don't see why the general idea (which I personally like) couldn't be easily scaled by the three more difficult settings--numbers are more easliy scaled than binary, that's for sure. Then someone might say that 'normal' play shouldn't be diluted to 'require' a more difficult setting--if the very first difficulty setting can significantly increase the cooldowns and such or even remove them entirely, then at least the other two in combination should provide enough challenge for the really hardcore--and I seem to remember an Obsidian comment about allowing players to pick and choose among the difficult modes. Not sure.

 

Yes, there was a dev post indicating that there would a number of options to set difficulty, and the length of the cooldown timers could definitely be one of them. But simply adding a "Base cooldown length" slider isn't really enough to resolve the issue. The game has to be balanced either with the assumption that "players will have most / all of their replenishable resources available for every encounter" or "players will need to conserve replenishable resources over multiple encounters". A game balanced for "all resources available" becomes insanely difficult when played the other way, and a game balanced for "limited resources" is insanely easy when the situation is reversed.

 

This is, by the way, one of the valid reasons for objecting to rest-spam in IE games: If restspam is possible, then the developers have to create encounters that are challenging to a party healed to 100% with all spells available. If a player (for roleplaying reasons) wishes to not restspam, then they will feel that the game is trying to force them to restspam, by throwing absurdly difficult encounters at them.

 

This is addressable as well, of course -- you could double up every combat encounter in the game, with one set used with low cooldown times, and another set used with high cooldown times -- but you've just dramatically increased your workload. It makes more sense to choose one or the other and balance the game for that, and the other group is just SOL.

 

Just one observation--I think you're assuming the difficulty levels requires static designed enemy encounters and apply by nerfing player mechanics. I was actually expecting at least some difficulty sliders to apply to all enemies as a mirror effect with player mechanics. So there are really three basic types of difficulty scaling--player mechanics, enemy mechanics, and complete game mechanics. The last type would be auto-balancing in a sense, but it would also negate some of the powergaming challenges players would expect. For example, sliding difficulty to force the cooldowns to behave more like D&D-Vancian could affect enemy casters with the exact same variables--but this isn't necessarily more difficult.

 

I dunno, just chatting... I haven't looked into the specifics of those three difficulty modes either.

[ogrezilla]

and that's why I can't take you seriously.

 

The feeling is mutual. Name a single decent game that used cooldowns.

I've never played a game that uses cooldowns the way they are describing them here. I'm not sure if I've ever played a game that used cooldowns but didn't use something like mana along with them.

 

All this does is allow mages to have their low level spells available pretty regularly right? Didn't someone mention the top level spells would still require rest?

Edited October 6, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Cantousent]

MReed, I concede as much as I can,

 

That you are the thinking person's Metiman,

I've enjoyed my exhanges with MReed, but I have to admit I guffawed at this one. I don't want anyone to leave. Hell, I want to host a huge party and pass around various adult beverages and then spend the whole night body blocking potential combatants.

 

I still think the broad categories are too broad. You can manufacture categories in any number of ways, but to buy into MReed's lists, nothing is a deal breaker for me so far. If I found out it was turning into the fantasy dating game (hetero or gay) or fantasy dance dance revolution or the medieval game of the rising proletariat, I would remove my pledge. Barring stuff like that, I think I'm good.

[moridin84]

I think it's a bad idea to try and categorize the entirety of the Project Eternity fanbase using from your impressions of the users of a single website*.

 

There are what? At most 500 people voting in polls? And probably less then 100 of those are actually posting? The Kickstarter page has already 50 thousand backers at this point and hopefully the game will be getting 10 times that amount in sales.

 

SAMPLE SIZE!

 

 

* Maybe more then one, don't care

Edited October 6, 2012 by moridin84

[MReed]

Just one observation--I think you're assuming the difficulty levels requires static designed enemy encounters and apply by nerfing player mechanics. I was actually expecting at least some difficulty sliders to apply to all enemies as a mirror effect with player mechanics. So there are really three basic types of difficulty scaling--player mechanics, enemy mechanics, and complete game mechanics. The last type would be auto-balancing in a sense, but it would also negate some of the powergaming challenges players would expect. For example, sliding difficulty to force the cooldowns to behave more like D&D-Vancian could affect enemy casters with the exact same variables--but this isn't necessarily more difficult.

 

I dunno, just chatting... I haven't looked into the specifics of those three difficulty modes either.

 

Yeah, good idea, but I'm afraid that this doesn't work either. Enemies only have to face exactly one encounter in their lifespan (with the party), and they will (barring plot based intervention) inevitably lose that encounter. Thus, cooldown mechanics (except for the low level spells) are 100% irrelevent -- they will either have the spell (and use it once) or won't have it at all. I suppose technically they might be playing under the same rules as the player is, but practically speaking...

[Nixl]

While I partially understand what Metiman is saying, I do think there are some broad over generalizations made in the post. I would argue people rarely fall into such over simplified categories, especially those on this board.

 

Also I hope I do not sound rude Metiman, but you talk about pandering to "Biowarians", but at the same time aren't you advocating that Obsidian just pander to another group? Is it not strange to label one side of pandering better over another when it is all just about pandering in this thread?

 

That being said, I do hate Bioware romances.

 

edit: Question, if someone does not like either a pure memorization system or cooldown system, what category are they automatically placed in?

Edited October 7, 2012 by Nixl

[ddillon]

Yeah, good idea, but I'm afraid that this doesn't work either. Enemies only have to face exactly one encounter in their lifespan (with the party), and they will (barring plot based intervention) inevitably lose that encounter. Thus, cooldown mechanics (except for the low level spells) are 100% irrelevent -- they will either have the spell (and use it once) or won't have it at all. I suppose technically they might be playing under the same rules as the player is, but practically speaking...

 

That's one among many reasons that a memorization system sucks: Enemies must be nerfed because otherwise they have access to their entire memorized spell list for that one battle while the player party will have often used a portion of its memorized spells before that battle. Now you might call that a tactical choice, to conserve your spells in case you stumble upon a powerful enemy, but that means you'll be using your spells far less often and more than likely having far less fun using a sling to hurl pebbles at your enemies most of the time. So... yeah.

 

That's my initial take on it, anyways, the first thoughts popping into my mind after reading your post.

Edited October 7, 2012 by ddillon