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

[PrimeJunta]

@Monte Carlo -- yup, heroic logic FTW. I'm just (mildly) concerned that piercing weapons will fall between the cracks as it were, mechanically, and I was wondering how the P:E gang was intending to justify their existence.

 

Put another way, suppose I have a maul, a claymore, and an estoc. According to the update, the maul does most damage through armor, the claymore does most damage against no armor, and both the maul and the claymore have higher base damage than the estoc. So when would I want to pick up the estoc instead of the maul or the claymore?

[Starwars]

Thank you thank you thank you for the news about a more solid-feeling interface. I hate the trend to have very minimalist or "clean-looking" interfaces. The minimalist approach works well for some games but for a RPG, I want it to *feel* solid and meaty so to speak. I really disliked how the Skyrim interface looked for example (and I don't just mean the horrible functionality side of things). Although the option to rotate items and look at them was a cool thing for that game.

 

The inventory management alsos ounds intriguing.

[japol]

Icewind Dale II UI. Yes!!

[Monte Carlo]

The *only* thing I didn't like about the IWD2 interface was the lack of a paper doll. Even worse was the *teeny* avatar sitting in a snow globe. If you are going down that route may I suggest that the avatar is bigger?

[Monte Carlo]

Oh, and BG1 granite and gold interface FTW.

[Rostere]

Obviously piercing damage will typically be next to slashing damage in raw amount dealt. Piercing damage would thus be your next best choice against an unarmored opponent, but would always deal at least a (fixed) minimal amount of damage to any armoured opponent. Depending on how they calculate damage, piercing might also be the damage of choice for low-str characters fighting heavily armoured opponents.

[monkofwar]

Aside from no good news for 16:10 users (same here, my laptop is running on 1280x800, and this seems to be one of the most common resolutions where I live), I loved the update. IWD2-like interface, damage types, combat mechanics, EQUIPMENT - oh God, this game is going to be great.

[Inertia]

Is there any chance we can get a look @ the spell list you guys test with?

[Jobby]

Awesome news, Good inventory management, Distinct but not limited classes and an interesting damage/armour mechanic. I am slightly worried about the passive vs active though, i would hope a well designed character with a mix of passive and active abilitys would be more formidable than a purely passive one.

[Monte Carlo]

Awesome news, Good inventory management, Distinct but not limited classes and an interesting damage/armour mechanic. I am slightly worried about the passive vs active though, i would hope a well designed character with a mix of passive and active abilitys would be more formidable than a purely passive one.

 

Hmmm. I don't see why. A resistance-monkey class who dumps powers into simply being tough whilst dishing out melee damage is a perfectly viable build. Personally I like a 70/30 (ish) split between passive and modal, favouring passive. Mainly because I like being able to choose a few potent powers over lots of so-so ones. But that's just for fighters, for example, spell-casters and rogues this ratio moves back to a 50/50 (again for me personally).

 

So when you look at the variables I'd argue that your reasoning is questionable.

[Darkpriest]

Looks solid and "fun friendly" on paper. I cannot wait for fist in game shots even if pre-alpha stages to get the sense of it!

[Sacred_Path]

taking UI cues from ToEE? I hope that doesn't mean radial menus PLZ GOD NO

[PrimeJunta]

Obviously piercing damage will typically be next to slashing damage in raw amount dealt. Piercing damage would thus be your next best choice against an unarmored opponent, but would always deal at least a (fixed) minimal amount of damage to any armoured opponent. Depending on how they calculate damage, piercing might also be the damage of choice for low-str characters fighting heavily armoured opponents.

 

But that's not what the update said.

 

Piercing weapons negate a fixed amount of Damage Threshold, which is the primary way in which armor reduces damage. Though they don't do as much damage as slashing or crushing weapons, their ability to ignore even moderately heavy armor means that it is superior to other weapons in those circumstances. [...] Crushing weapons do much more through armor, which makes them the best choice when dealing with very heavily armored targets.

(boldface mine)

 

What I'm confused about is the apparent contradition beteween the second and last sentences. Thinking about it more, though, I think I get it.

 

Is the idea that armor has two properties, damage threshold and damage reduction, and weapons have three properties, weapon damage, threshold negation, and reduction negation, so that full damage is applied if it beats (damage threshold - threshold negation), otherwise weapon damage is reduced by (damage reduction - reduction negation)?

 

So slashy things would have high weapon damage but low threshold negation and reduction negation, stabby things would have low weapon damage and reduction negation but high threshold negation, and crushy things would have medium weapon damage, low threshold negation, but high reduction negation. This would make crushy things best against heavy armor, since nothing can overcome their damage threshold but crushy things are best at getting some damage through anyway, stabby things best against medium armor since they would get through the threshold for full damage while crushy and slashy things would get the reduction applied, and slashy things best against no/light armor since they have the highest weapon damage and would have no damage threshold to worry about.

 

If this is the way it's supposed to work, I say Yay! Makes sense, both in terms of verisimilitude and game balance.

[Moirnelithe]

Great update, I love you guys. Have a wonderful holiday

[Monte Carlo]

My tiny brain is reeling right now.

[PrimeJunta]

My tiny brain is reeling right now.

 

Critical hit?

[Osvir]

I've been meaning to drop by here ever since backing the Kickstarter, so now's as good a time as any to start.

 

I've not kept up with all the updates, but intend to now as I'm pretty excited by what this game offers. Because I've not read/watched everything, I'll refrain from any in-depth comments or queries, primarily as I may be covering ground previously trod. However, one thing did stand out for me:

 

When you find gear, you have the option of placing it wherever you'd like as long as there's room for it. You can use it immediately, put it in your top of pack, or just chuck it in the stash. Once an object is in the stash, you can access it at camps, your home, and similar locations. 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. Most importantly, it doesn't prevent you from doing what adventurers love to do most: loot everything they find that isn't bolted down.

Update from Josh Sawyer

 

 

I really like division of storage you've presented. If I understand it correctly, characters will have a small amount of equipment readied (the stuff they are using), a slightly larger pool of trappings to hand (stuff they can quickly access if required -- perhaps hanging on belts, in handy pockets, and so on), and a greater well of gear stored away in their backpacks or similar (typically inaccessible stuff characters'll hopefully never need). That sounds, to my ears, a perfect split, for it not only sounds vaguely realistic, but also creates strategic choices concerning where you'll put your stuff, which presents a modicum of management (where do I put this stuff?), but not too much to interrupt gameplay (most of this stuff is useless, so I'll drop it into my stash -- job done -- except for this nifty Undead-Slaying Spatula, I may need it later, so I'll make space for it in my Top of Pack). I like that -- some inventory management, but not too much.

 

Assuming I have the right idea, perhaps more characterful names for each of the three inventory divisions would be worth considering. As it stands, you have:

 

Equipment

Top of Pack

The Stash

 

Maybe something a little more 'in game' might be nicer. Something like:

 

Equipped

To Hand

Packed

 

A stash sounds like something that you would walk away from and return to if you needed it. That said, perhaps this is exactly what you intend, like you've dropped the gear in a magic bag or pocket realm, rather than in a physical backpack.

 

Minor suggestions, yes, but it's the small things that help with immersion when you're playing an RPG.

 

I'm looking at it like this:

 

* Equipment

* Backpack

* Spiritual Stash Mule (clarification/explain: "Spiritual" like "Spiritual successor")

 

Similarly, I would like a non-combat "Search" skill in a way like this:

* Highlighting (TAB) and hovering your mouse over an object brings up a "scroll" (like in the IE games, a "title"). Munchkin (the board game) has this "feature" in spirit. When you clear out a room it gets "Looted" depending on a dice roll, and "How looted?" etc. etc. there are several variables and factors. I am recalling the Munckin stuff from memory.

 

"Looted" means that the room is 1/2 empty (kind of) and looting the same room again yields a lesser reward (which can be a greater reward if Luck serves you). "Fully Looted" means and declares that the room is 100% looted and there's nothing more in there (there are some spells and items that can make the room "Un-Looted" though, not interesting for the idea I am advocating, simply just knowledge). With a "Search" skill doing all the "Checking" for you, so when you hover the mouse over a body of stash that you want to loot you get a message on a small scroll saying something about the loot so you can instantly (before even picking anything up) see if there is anything interesting to loot.

 

Kind of an ability that bases itself in "Perception". You slay the enemy and you can see instantly (before looting) "Ah, that guy had a mystical sword". Could "Search" and "Lore" Skills be combined somehow? (Cartograph? Could give the character better vision and further FOV?) Depending on how great your "Search" is, you could even get a message saying something like "Nothing of interest here" even though there might be a badass epic weapon or equipment laying in the targeted treasure cache. This, I believe, would make looting considerably more important. More importantly, it makes "Search" important mechanically and for roleplaying.

 

Instead of checking every single treasure chest, every body, every corner etc. etc. I could get instant feedback. I could actually have my party walking towards one direction whilst checking stuff with "TAB" and hovering the mouse over objects and see if there is anything remotely interesting to loot.

 

Kingdoms of Amalur used something I am thinking of, but they took it to an extreme level (Where you will actually find more caches by dedicating points to "Find Treasure" which just made it clottered. You find 3 more stashes due to the skill, I am implying that you'd simply get 1 detailed short one-liner feedback message that gets better and better per level in "Search"). You won't find more hidden bodies, but you will simply get more feedback on what to pick up and what not to pick up.

 

By investing in the skill you can get a "Check" telling you that "Nothing of interest here" depending on what items you have picked up thus far (that could be quite a workload though, is there a better way?). Meaning that even if your skill is 100% you could still get "Nothing of interest here" and you wouldn't even need to bother looting because you already have 99'999 torches in your Stash, picking up one more won't do you any more good than what you already can do, kind of.

 

The idea I am advocating for is, at later levels you could just run through a dungeon with a high Skill check and hardly pick up anything. You'll pick up what you need and the Quality items. With a low Search skill you'd have to adhere to your inner OCD God regardless (picking up everything, checking everything yourself etc. etc.) or you'd be missing out on lots of items.

 

Happy holidays

 

P.S Bloopers? "Update 100 something"

 

EDIT: Is it just me or does it feel like "Armor" is going to have "Health" somehow? (What with the Piercing & Co) if that's the case....

 

Important for Mortality:

Armor

Health

 

Important for Progression/Tactics:

Stamina

 

If a "Repair" skill is going to be present in P:E (or a "Maintenance" skill) I can totally see it. Although important for a casual player (could armor be invulnerable at a low difficulty?) mostly important for Hardcore.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Osvir

[matthewfarmery]

WOW!! what a update, a great deal of thought is going into this game, but one thing puzzles me

 

 

1st Level Wizard Spells - Wizards can access all 1st level wizard spells immediately. Unlike other wizard spell levels, the wizard does not need to find scrolls or grimoires to use any 1st level spells. Wizards can cast a fixed number of 1st level spells before they must rest to recover their uses. They can cast any combination of different spells up to the per-rest limit. As wizards gain levels, their 1st level spells will eventually become per-encounter resources.

 

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this?

 

I can understand 1st level spells been a fixed amount,, able to cast so many before you need rest to regain them, but I don't understand the second bit? does that mean you can cast a unlimited amount of spells during combat? then need rest to cast any more 1st spells? or does this mean something else?

 

apart from that, I like the direction the game is heading, that was quite a read, and a very good update, please keep them coming

[Chocrates]

I am curious, what were the IE-ish things that you didn't like?

[Monte Carlo]

WOW!! what a update, a great deal of thought is going into this game, but one thing puzzles me

 

 

1st Level Wizard Spells - Wizards can access all 1st level wizard spells immediately. Unlike other wizard spell levels, the wizard does not need to find scrolls or grimoires to use any 1st level spells. Wizards can cast a fixed number of 1st level spells before they must rest to recover their uses. They can cast any combination of different spells up to the per-rest limit. As wizards gain levels, their 1st level spells will eventually become per-encounter resources.

 

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this?

 

Matthew,

 

If it's like a 4E spell it means that you can cast that spell once per encounter (i.e. battle). Once that encounter is finished (i.e. all those foes are dead, subdued or have run away) you don't need to memorize it again or rest. It just comes back. It's a compromise mechanic between Vancian (memorisation) spell systems and cool-down (MMO like) mana systems.

 

As I see this design process develop it strikes me that a lot of 4E stuff that suck donkey balls in a PnP game actually makes sense in a CRPG. Which, as I've said before is the entire point given the clear computer game influences behind 4E.

[Gyges]

Really appreciate this, heres hoping there will be plenty of weapon types to pick from. So tired of noone recognizing the merit of non-sword/axe weapon types. Give me a halberd any day.

[matthewfarmery]

OK thanks for that, I not played 4e rules, so didn't realise that was possible, but that does now make a lot of sense

[Aedelric]

A great update!

 

I was not sure we were going to get any till next year, it was a pleasant surprise.

[IchigoRXC]

I see the weapons as thus:

 

Slashing does 10 Damage

Piercing does 7 Damage, - 5 threshold.

Smashing does 5 Damage, - 9 threshold.

 

Light armour has 1 Damage threshold. Slashing does 9 damage, piecing 7 damage, smashing 5 damage.

Medium Armour has 5 DT, Slashing does 5 damage, piercing does 7 damage smashing does 5 damage.

Heavy Armour has 9 DT, Slashing does 1 damage, Piercing does 3 damage, Smashing does 5 damage.

 

 

Smashing will always have consistent damage whereas piecing will do more on medium targets and Slashing will rip through Light targets.

 

The maths will invariably be wrong with this, but this is how I see it.

[Monte Carlo]

^ Doesn't Dragon Age have something very loosely similar to this. I remember Mauls had modest damage but were great against armour.

 

Personally I think it's too abstract. The kinetic energy of getting whacked with a big lump of metal on a pole is going to hurt you whether it's a mace, hammer or halberd.

 

A nice simple consistent damage reduction system across weapon types would make me happy, but then again I like less 'gamey' systems.