Project Eternity Update #36: Off to our elfhomes, but first...

^^^^

Oblivion allows you to pick up every little thing and sell it, down to the turnip, quill, and worn garment. Likewise, there was lots of low-value stuff available in Fallout 3 & NLV. Yes there were weigh limits, but you could instant travel back and forth between the location and a store. For me it never become a problem having all that low value loot available.

 

Of course, Oblivion isn't what Project Eternity intends to replicate.

So do the myriad of other mechanics changes but we gots degenerate playing to stomp out.

 

I'm curious about what makes you think so.

 

You have to think about how to build your characters, yes. You have to think about what your fighters should be doing. You can't rely on longswords to carry you through the entire game. Nothing of that really flies in the face of IE games, it's simply adding depth that was sorely needed.

 

I do hope some other areas get a complete overhaul as well (I'm looking at you "Hide in Shadows/ Move Silently"; "Pickpocket"; mage buffs; pre-combat buff insanity; rest spamming).

 

I'm expecting some minor ****storms when more info is leaked that makes people realize it's not just a graphical overhaul of any IE game.

 

Heh, I know I sound negative but the list of things Im not worried about far outweighs what worries me.

 

Im not worried about the story, Im sure it will be good. The graphics are perfect, isometric is my favorite. The NPC's will probably be a major strenght and Im sure the background "how the world of PE works", what souls do and how they power stuff, all will be logical and well thought out.

 

What Im worried about is the meat-n-potatoes stuff. The things Im going to be doing a hundred times just in the normal maintenance of my party throughout the game. From what I understand, it seems like there is a concerted effort to apply punative restrictions to these core mechanics. Healing (or lack thereof), saving (savepoints?), camping (having to to camp), inventory ("deep stash" you can only access while camping), cooldowns...and thats just whats been revealed so far. I just hope the game isnt scientifically designed to beat me up every time I need to do something.

^^^^

Oblivion allows you to pick up every little thing and sell it, down to the turnip, quill, and worn garment. Likewise, there was lots of low-value stuff available in Fallout 3 & NLV. Yes there were weigh limits, but you could instant travel back and forth between the location and a store. For me it never become a problem having all that low value loot available.

 

Of course, Oblivion isn't what Project Eternity intends to replicate.

They are both systems that allow unlimited looting without it breaking the economics. Ergo, it's quite do-able.

 

Will you be able to access the stash when you go to the store?

They are both systems that allow unlimited looting without it breaking the economics. Ergo, it's quite do-able.

 

Will you be able to access the stash when you go to the store?

 

It is quite do-able, but most of the stuff you could grab in Oblivion/Fallout3/New Vegas was pretty pointless in its existence. Sure, you can pick up all the little tin cans and food items (although things like that were a lot LESS useless in NV) and baseballs, but that stuff only provided 2 real purposes:

 

1) It provided an aesthetic/interactive sense of immersion in the world, because there was realistic (to the game world) stuff around that was actually (virtually) tangible.

 

2) It allowed you to make 2 bottle caps at a time off of each item. Basically, a reallllly boring, painful alternative to any other form of making money in the game (i.e. slaughtering patrols of super mutants and selling their actual, useful, valuable equipment to weapons dealers, or just-plain finding currency instead of an aesthetically-pleasing middle man.)

 

It's the same concept as the "Junk/Trash" tab in many an RPG inventory. You find "A broken sword hilt" or "some marbles" or "gnoll toenail clippings," and literally the only purpose for them in the entire game is to be sold for some minimal amount of money. The only difference is that those are often merely items in a list, and not things you can actually see and interact with like in Fallout3/NV/Oblivion.

 

I think, at the very least, such things can be better handled by having each item have a use (no matter how minor) that provides its value (instead of having everyone in the universe buy it for 2 gold when you need 17,000 for a new plate helm). Or maybe certain things are salvable and work into the crafting system. But, if something ONLY has a money-value, and it's ridiculously petty, then it serves no real purpose in the game that isn't served in a severely better manner by all other means of money acquisition in the game.

 

 

 

 

to point A... josh sawyer disagrees with you. am kinda curious to see if josh direct responds to issue o' eternity classes seeing as how they don't seem to fall in line with his espoused notions on the issue. have classes means that you Fix certain abilities to certain classes. looks up the definition-- classes divide and limit.

 

Actually, Josh Sawyer disagrees specifically with unnecessarily restrictive classes, as opposed to the existence of classes in the first place. If you had literally no limitations on which character could do what, you basically get Skyrim's character development system (that was literally the basis of their design. "NO RESTRICTIONS AT ALL! 8D") Which brings us to...

 

point B is just plain... stoopid. seriously. recall that obsidian is peopled by many of the guys who made fallout. point to a bethesda product and say that obsidian would fail 'cause it sucked in skyrim? that wasn't Really your argument, was it?

 

"Point B" was that "no limitations" leads to Skryim, followed by the actual question of whether or not you advocated that system. I'm unable to locate its stupidity. In the event that you don't want the system Skyrim used (not the specifics of their whole game design, JUST their "whatever skills and abilities we've put into the game, you can literally get all of them" approach), you want classes (or, at least A class). You either want everything on all characters, or you only want some things on all characters. Doesn't matter if you restrict each class by a single, solitary ability/skill. That's still a class system, logistically.

 

I don't recall making any mention of situations for Obsidian to fail, or taking or adding systems to Skyrim. I merely pointed to Skyrim as a reference for the system they used to handle classes. I also don't recall claiming that the definition of class meant that they DIDN'T limit. Limitations are good. They are a fundamental part of games. If we play a multiplayer shooter, I can't come into your room and knock you unconscious with a heavy, dense object, then say "YAY! I WON!" No, I must beat you within the limitations of the game and its rules and mechanics.

 

The use of classes purely organizes and distinguishes the various limitation sets you come up with in the event that you don't implement a purely limitless system. It's the same thing as deciding all the characters shouldn't be immortal, then saying "Okay, then how hard should it be to kill them?" and coming up with hitpoints, and your damage system, etc.

What Im worried about is the meat-n-potatoes stuff. The things Im going to be doing a hundred times just in the normal maintenance of my party throughout the game. From what I understand, it seems like there is a concerted effort to apply punative restrictions to these core mechanics. Healing (or lack thereof), saving (savepoints?), camping (having to <go somewhere> to camp), inventory ("deep stash" you can only access while camping), cooldowns...and thats just whats been revealed so far. I just hope the game isnt scientifically designed to beat me up every time I need to do something.

 

I don't remember them saying anything about saving other than "You will be able to save anywhere in Project Eternity." And the only problem I see with your opinion on limited camping is that it suggests the constant, inherent NEED to camp all the time. The player typically does not have access to shops and town NPCs very often, and yet, no one says "Dangit... they're not going to let us sell things and turn in quests unless we're in CERTAIN PLACES?! Welp... looks like now I'm gonna HAVE to trek somewhere every single time I get done with battle and loot bodies, or open up a locked chest."

 

No, we typically are fine with making the best use of our inventory space and finishing an area/quest/dungeon before heading back to town to sell everything and turn in our quests and procure new ones, etc.

 

I'm really not trying to be snide. I just honestly think you're looking at it wrong, with the "Now I'm required to go somewhere!" when there'll probably plenty of reasons in the game to travel to the next camp location. Sure, you might need to go back to town occasionally before you get out of an explorable area (just as you might get low on health before you make it all the way forward to the next camp spot), but that's what balance is for. I'm just not seeing how it's so terrible that it's even possible you might have to move backwards to camp because you will eventually need to camp at some point. Nothing can make that any more frustrating than any other similar interval-limitation in any RPG ever, except bad balancing.

 

I highly, highly doubt the game will more than very-rarely beat you up when you need to do something.

Edited December 22, 2012 by Lephys

I'm guessing it's because you feel it would lead to degenerate gameplay?

It's because the game should dictate the challenge. If there is going to be really great and challenging combat, then there need to be boundaries on resources of all kinds. Challenge is all about what the player needs to do, and they should be learning to make the correct decisions the entire way, not hitting the pause button in reaction to obvious signals like a Pavlovian dog.

 

1. Improve AI and pathfinding so that players don't have to constantly worry that party members will get stuck somewhere, wander off to fight a clearly low-priority enemy, or waste a spell or ability unnecessarily.
    
   
2. Allow players to choose the ratio of active to passive abilities for each party member, so that not every one of them has tons of fiddly abilities unless that's what the player wants. This was even mentioned in the update!
    
   
3. Allow players to queue up multiple moves, attacks, and abilities in advance.
   

All of these things would support tactical combat with limits on pausing by eliminating the need for constant micromanagement of characters. In fact, as these things get better and better, it will become more and more obvious that putting a limit on pauses is a very good idea. And lol at people who want to call real time combat a "twitch" game. As if paying close attention to what is happening and reacting properly in real time is more "twitchy" than smacking a space bar to pause the game when something looks wrong.

 

I don't disagree that a system that requires or rewards constantly pausing to babysit all 6 members of your party is a bad one, but your solution doesn't actually fix the need to pause constantly, if there even is such a need, it just limits the ability to do so. That's a recipe for unnecessary frustration.

Yeah, so I wasn't saying that limiting pauses was some sort of "solution" for the need to pause constantly. But if you can eliminate the need to constantly micromanage in order to execute tactics properly, it just doesn't make sense to have unlimited pauses. And if you don't need to pause constantly, then how will limiting or attaching a cost to pauses cause any "unnecessary frustration"?

 

What really don't like about high level dnd(I should say that I'm only familiar with it through CRPGs) are the crazy buff sessions. I think it's fair to say that if people start making mods to make it easier, like with NWN2, something has gone wrong. So I'd suggest cutting the amount of spells from that direction first.

 

 

Do not take this the wrong way, but you are pretty wrong about the buff sessions in D&D. As you said, you are only familiar with it in CRPGs, but it functions much differently in PnP, where resting is not as easy and where most spells have material components.

 

If they want to improve buffing in a CRPG, they should have less stackable spells that last longer, so spending 4 minutes on buffing is not optimal.

Great work keep it up! The inventory idea was brilliant, keep it up and Merry Christmas!

lots off wacky

 

what is it with you, skyrim and hyperbole silliness? no class means no-CLASS restrictions and not NO RESTRICTIONS WHATSOEVER. sheesh. class v. classless were discussed multiple times when ill-fated bg3 (Jefferson) and fallout 3 (Van Buren) were being developed by black isle, and if you think this is first time class v. classless has ever come up on these boards, you is nuts. josh had his input.

 

"I don't recall making any mention of situations for Obsidian to fail, or taking or adding systems to Skyrim."

 

Gromnir advocates classless.

 

you respond with, "Do you want Skyrim, in which you can literally max out every single character-progression option in the game, on 6 different party members?"

 

...

 

do you even read what you write? or was that just a complete non-sequitur that you felt the need to enumerate in a response to a query 'bout classless systems? we never suggested that anything be added to skyrim either. lord only knows what adding to skyrim has to do with anything in any event.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited December 22, 2012 by Gromnir

Since you devs are clearly actually reading these threads, would you mind easing the fears of us playing on TV setups or simply with poor eyesight? Will there be UI options for readability, or at least thought put into that scenario? Civ 5 is a great example of a great game with totally unreadable text for me unless I drop the resolution way, way down to 720p.

No, we typically are fine with making the best use of our inventory space and finishing an area/quest/dungeon before heading back to town to sell everything and turn in our quests and procure new ones, etc.

 

Exactly my point. Which means the addition of a, imo, pointless "deep stash" is there only to limit players from accessing 100% of the stuff they have picked up. Why? Please dont say beacause of "degenerative inventory". Punative.

 

I highly, highly doubt the game will more than very-rarely beat you up when you need to do something.

 

*fingers crossed*

No, we typically are fine with making the best use of our inventory space and finishing an area/quest/dungeon before heading back to town to sell everything and turn in our quests and procure new ones, etc.

 

Exactly my point. Which means the addition of a, imo, pointless "deep stash" is there only to limit players from accessing 100% of the stuff they have picked up. Why? Please dont say beacause of "degenerative inventory". Punative.

 

You make it sound like any sort of strategy or tactic is punitive. A game without rules isn't a game. Just wanted to requote this from the OP for you, emphasis mine:

 

We've created this division of inventory space to add strategy to your gear loadout decisions instead of having a weight limit, while also allowing flexibility for backup equipment.

Edited December 22, 2012 by Hormalakh

It's because the game should dictate the challenge. If there is going to be really great and challenging combat, then there need to be boundaries on resources of all kinds. Challenge is all about what the player needs to do, and they should be learning to make the correct decisions the entire way, not hitting the pause button in reaction to obvious signals like a Pavlovian dog.

 

I disagree that there need to be boundaries on resources of all kinds, and so do you probably. Should the number of mouse clicks you can make be limited? How about the number of times you get to read the description of what an item or ability does? I'm guessing you would find that kind of thing ridiculous, in which case you now know how I feel about limiting pauses.

 

I would also like to introduce as evidence the entire genre of turn-based RPGs and strategy games, which basically consist of nothing but pauses, yet can still be plenty challenging.

 

All of these things would support tactical combat with limits on pausing by eliminating the need for constant micromanagement of characters. In fact, as these things get better and better, it will become more and more obvious that putting a limit on pauses is a very good idea. And lol at people who want to call real time combat a "twitch" game. As if paying close attention to what is happening and reacting properly in real time is more "twitchy" than smacking a space bar to pause the game when something looks wrong.

.

 

When you end up with a situation where you have to issue orders to six separate characters in rapid succession (if, for example, all of their previous abilities expire at near the same time), then yes, that would mostly be "twitchy" gameplay, since it mainly depends on clicking the right places fast enough. And that's fine for ARPGs and RTS games but there's a reason you only typically control one character in the former and a bunch of units with no or limited abilities and equipment in the latter. Not every game has to make use of every skill.

 

Yeah, so I wasn't saying that limiting pauses was some sort of "solution" for the need to pause constantly. But if you can eliminate the need to constantly micromanage in order to execute tactics properly, it just doesn't make sense to have unlimited pauses. And if you don't need to pause constantly, then how will limiting or attaching a cost to pauses cause any "unnecessary frustration"?

 

If you eliminate the need to pause constantly, then pausing becomes merely a matter of preference. Like to pause rarely? OK! Like to pause a lot? Go nuts! And speaking of giving people options, I would be fine with Obsidian, in addition to Expert mode and Ironman mode etc., adding a checkbox for Limited Pause mode if they feel like it. I just wouldn't want to use it and I don't expect it to catch on in these types of games.

I would expect the game to have changeable key mappings. So bind "pause" to Ctrl-Alt-Del. Problem solved.

I am very pleased with the thought process and direction of the game thus far! Keep up the good work! Happy Holidays!

Josh Sawyer posted an excel spreadsheet with various PE weapons and their effectiveness against different DT ranges.

 

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3506352&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=323

 

Too bad you need to be registered to see post attachments and registration costs 10 dollars.

Josh Sawyer posted an excel spreadsheet with various PE weapons and their effectiveness against different DT ranges.

 

http://forums.someth...&pagenumber=323

 

Too bad you need to be registered to see post attachments and registration costs 10 dollars.

 

It's a nearly unreadable image. Not the entire spreadsheet.

You make it sound like any sort of strategy or tactic is punitive. A game without rules isn't a game. Just wanted to requote this from the OP for you, emphasis mine:

 

We've created this division of inventory space to add strategy to your gear loadout decisions instead of having a weight limit, while also allowing flexibility for backup equipment.

That statement from Josh may explain the function of the first tier of PE's proposed inventory system. But it doesn't explain the 2nd. From reading and rereading the update, the best I can decipher from it is that the 2nd tier is like the "junk" tab that Dragon Age 2 had. It is inaccessable during actual exploration and combat gameplay, which means it's unrelated to the issue of gear loadout strategy.

 

That and it's a redundant feature, since its main function is to serve the exact same purpose that a storage chest does in a player house/stronghold. Add to this the fact that they've also decided to eliminate inventory weight restrictions and what we get is a system that actually *removes* what little strategy and decision making the old IE game inventory systems had. That's a negative in my book.

 

But I'll keep an open mind. They just might succeed in their attempts to re-invent the wheel.

Edited December 22, 2012 by Stun

I disagree that there need to be boundaries on resources of all kinds, and so do you probably. Should the number of mouse clicks you can make be limited? How about the number of times you get to read the description of what an item or ability does? I'm guessing you would find that kind of thing ridiculous, in which case you now know how I feel about limiting pauses.

Of course I think it would be ridiculous to limit mouse clicks and reading item and ability descriptions in this game (while limiting combat commands, on the other hand, is only sensible, and was already being done in the IE games outside of movement and cancelling). Come on, you are just trying to obfuscate what is and is not a resource mechanic in order to deny my point.

 

I would also like to introduce as evidence the entire genre of turn-based RPGs and strategy games, which basically consist of nothing but pauses, yet can still be plenty challenging.

Yes, and there have always been boundaries set on resources in those games. RtwP was introduced as a sort of compromise between a consistent "physical reality" in the game world vs Pen and Paper rules which have no spatial dimension. If you're not going to at least simulate "turns" or "rounds" (can you really do this properly in a game with free movement?) then it only makes sense to draw boundaries somewhere else. The command pause mechanic is the most obvious place to draw boundaries when you are trying to balance how the player will manage commands in real time tactical combat.

 

When you end up with a situation where you have to issue orders to six separate characters in rapid succession (if, for example, all of their previous abilities expire at near the same time), then yes, that would mostly be "twitchy" gameplay, since it mainly depends on clicking the right places fast enough.

Which is why I wouldn't want to eliminate command pauses altogether. If you see this coming, why not make sure you can pause? "Twitchy" is definitely not the right word for executing complicated mechanical actions, and if you've played RTS games, for example, you'd know the difference. Hell, even being good at sports IRL, requires that you have some sense and foresight about what is happening, not to mention combat (or any other activity, for that matter).

 

And that's fine for ARPGs and RTS games but there's a reason you only typically control one character in the former and a bunch of units with no or limited abilities and equipment in the latter. Not every game has to make use of every skill.

Dude, it's not like it's the number of skills/abilities at your disposal that matters with pausing. It's the frequency with which you have to make inputs in order to control them (and the difficulty of those inputs) that matters. I intially responded to Jon's post because of what he had to say about queuing actions and limiting "active" abilities vis a vis pausing. Eliminating the need to babysit any one character the entire length of combat is what makes tactical coordination of multiple characters possible.

 

And why shouldn't there be some advantages for competence and skill on the part of the player, like in ARPGs and RTS games? Obviously, I'm not suggesting that P:E be as demanding in action mechanics as those types of games, but some benefit is in order (other than better "pacing") for making the right choices in a timely manner, even if they are only very simple choices.

 

If you eliminate the need to pause constantly, then pausing becomes merely a matter of preference.

No pausing always gives you an advantage, albeit one which can be more or less significant based on what is happening in combat. As you mentioned, there will likely be situations where you will want to give orders to many combatants at once. If you put limits or extra costs on command pauses, the player would have to use pauses more carefully, and this is only proper because of how potentially powerful pausing can be.

 

I would be fine with Obsidian, in additsion to Expert mode and Ironman mode etc., adding a checkbox for Limited Pause mode if they feel like it.

Not just a checkbox, but a reasonably balanced difficulty option.

Edited December 23, 2012 by Game_Exile

That and it's a redundant feature, since its main function is to serve the exact same purpose that a storage chest does in a player house/stronghold. Add to this the fact that they've also decided to eliminate inventory weight restrictions and what we get is a system that actually *removes* what little strategy and decision making the old IE game inventory systems had. That's a negative in my book.

Yes, that was my thinking as well: that it functions like a storage chest. A portable storage chest so you don't need to keep trekking back and forth to your base. It's a reasonable approach and I'm still not seeing a cause for significant concern. If there are some specific design issues with it, well then presumably those will show up during testing and the designers can fine tune it.

 

What I didn't like about the inventory system in the old IE games were cases where you would overfill your carrying load, then need to spend several minutes shifting pack loads around until everybody was mobile again. Hopefully the Stash will reduce or eliminate this problem. That seems like a positive in my book.

Edited December 23, 2012 by rjshae

Josh Sawyer posted an excel spreadsheet with various PE weapons and their effectiveness against different DT ranges.

 

http://forums.someth...&pagenumber=323

 

Too bad you need to be registered to see post attachments and registration costs 10 dollars.

 

Speaking of which, it's becoming a bit of a hassle to keep track of all the bits of information that are being spread out across several platforms/ fora. The Known Information thread is a commendable effort to remedy this but it depends entirely on posters active at different places.

 

 

What I didn't like about the inventory system in the old IE games were cases where you would overfill your carrying load, then need to spend several minutes shifting pack loads around until everybody was mobile again. Hopefully the Stash will reduce or eliminate this problem. That seems like a positive in my book.

That's called inventory management, btw. Or as Josh calls it "loadout decisions". its a gameplay *strategy". But you can call it a "hassle" or a "problem" if you want. Me, I never had such problems in the IE games after the first Baldurs Gate, since they gave us gem bags, potion cases, bags of holding, scroll cases, and oh yeah: storage chests in our strongholds.

 

And IWD2, the game Josh said he and Tim were using as a starting point...? The inventory system was just about *perfect* in IWD2. Or about as perfect as you can get with a slot system

Edited December 23, 2012 by Stun

.

Edited December 23, 2012 by Sacred_Path

Speaking of which, it's becoming a bit of a hassle to keep track of all the bits of information that are being spread out across several platforms/ fora. The Known Information thread is a commendable effort to remedy this but it depends entirely on posters active at different places.

 

You could always just wait for the game to come out :smug:

Game? I don't need no stinkin' game. I just need all the information pertinent to building my case why they've failed to deliver something that lives up to my expectations.