My thoughts on project Eternity

[Malekith]

 

 

Of course you would get xp for combat if you had to kill everything to complete a quest.

 

But the game will not force you to kill everything to get quest xp. Actually, you will not need to kill anything to complete a quest.

 

I am just repeating myself now though.

Thats your problem. You want the game to force you to kill everything. How is that good game design?

Most of the backers don't want that.

No I don't. I just don't want the combat to be annoying and pointless. I want to be rewarded for making wise decisions, I want to be rewarded for making the hardest and most demanding options and not just for crossing some imaginary line.

 

I just want what the backers want. A spiritual successor to the IE games. Nothing more and nothing less.

>The game still rewards you for combat.It just don't rewards you for combat  better than non combat. That was the goal from the start.

You seem to find that unacceptable. Why is that?

The game only rewards you for crossing an imaginary line.

 

What the game should be doing is rewarding you for the most xp for the hardest and most demanding options. But that is not what we will be getting.

 

So your problem is not that there is no combat XP but that quest XP is the same no matter what you did.

If the system rewarded diffirent XP amounds of XP depended on how you solved the quest you would be happy?

[Helm]

^

Not how I solved the quest, but how wise my decisions were and how demanding it was. Juat like I said.

 

If I make a wise decision and sneak past the guards so that they don't kill the hostages, then I should be rewarded for that. If I simply avoid combat, then I should not be rewarded. If I engage in combat to kill evil child murdering and pillaging orcs, then I should be rewarded..... And many more examples.

 

This is an RPG. Character development (improving your combat (!) skills) is one of the most important aspects. You reward the player for making wise and demanding decisions. Just like it always has been and always should be. But this is not what we are getting.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Helm

[Bitula]

Dont know, where my previos post gone, but point is that Helm's concerns are substantial in the sense that a flat XP amount for Quests without any other alternatives is simplistic and boring. if the designers insist on rewarding non combat based solutions, than it should be handled with equeal measure. Than sneaking through more or harder enemies should be rewarded better. Talking yourself out through dialog options should be counted and rewarded according to difficulty. Killing enemies should be measured and counted according to their difficulty and amount, or the difficulty of an opposing group as a whole. This is a good workaround to solve this dilemma, and it does not matter when you get the XP, it could happen at the end of encounter or quest as well. So as far as I see, this is not yet decided, although Helm is looking for the link, so lets see, but, well a completly static amount of XP per Quests would be a very bad news.

[Helm]

Here are the links some of you have been bugging me about:

 

1. stealth is for all classes

2. no combat xp (because a player cannot stop himself from killing everything)

3. people will kill "just for phun" even if no xp is rewarded

4. your prefered playstyle will not be punished (avoid all combat or kill everything, it doesn't matter)

5. avoiding combat will not be punished with less loot

6. avoiding combat will not be punished with less loot or xp (at least not substantially)

7. avoiding combat will (almost) always be possible

[Wirdjos]

Here are the links some of you have been bugging me about:

 

1. stealth is for all classes

2. no combat xp (because a player cannot stop himself from killing everything)

3. people will kill "just for phun" even if no xp is rewarded

4. your prefered playstyle will not be punished (avoid all combat or kill everything, it doesn't matter)

5. avoiding combat will not be punished with less loot

6. avoiding combat will not be punished with less loot or xp (at least not substantially)

7. avoiding combat will (almost) always be possible

 

Awesome. Thanks for posting actual developer comments. On to the issues I have with them.

 

Your first link does not prove that stealth is being added to all classes. The only thing that post proves is that stealth, to a lessened extent, is being considered for other classes. Those other classes, and the limits those classes would face, are never mentioned.

 

I really wish you would stop with this 'phun' crap. A game should be fun. Parts of that game should be fun individually. A game does not need to be all about pushing forward. If it was, what made BG2 great in your option was largely for 'phun', because it wasn't strictly necessary to complete narrowest definition of the game. As for quote 3 itself, all Sawyer says there is that he wants to make combat fun past watching a little bar rise.

 

Quote 2 does not say the reason for xp to be tied to something other than combat is because the player can't stop compulsively killing things. I was directly stated that the decision was made because the game rewarded the player for compulsively killing things and punished the player for not compulsively killing things.

 

Quote 7 doesn't make any claims about what will or will not be possible. It is only a sarcastic comment that implies player freedom will be supported over linear design.

 

The rest of the quotes sound like good things and only support the impression I've had (and locomotron, I think) of the general direction of design.

[Helm]

Well, there are more links, but most of the info is in those.

 

Just relativize the facts all you want. Sawyer could write something about this, but he avoids threads like these. So don't expect that to happen.

 

Oh yeah, here is more about the sneak mechanic Yes, all classes can sneak (and yes, you can always sneak).

Edited January 30, 2013 by Helm

[TRX850]

I really hope they get the balance right with respect to all "alignments" and ideologies being properly playable, not just preferred play styles. But I've almost stopped worrying about it because if there are discrepancies, the modding community will step in with fixes. I suspect the first one will be an "XP Mod" to redress the balance.

[Helm]

I really hope they get the balance right with respect to all "alignments" and ideologies being properly playable, not just preferred play styles. But I've almost stopped worrying about it because if there are discrepancies, the modding community will step in with fixes. I suspect the first one will be an "XP Mod" to redress the balance.

 

Oh yeah, 2 days after the game has been released the nexus will be full of xp mods to fix this abomination of a system.

 

They could do it correctly right out of the box, but that is not going to happen as it seems.

[TRX850]

It would be a sad day indeed if they pandered to the whim of players who simply cannot control themselves IN THEIR OWN GAME.

 

Someone, pinch me, please....

[Wirdjos]

Well, there are more links, but most of the info is in those.

 

Just relativize the facts all you want. Sawyer could write something about this, but he avoids threads like these. So don't expect that to happen.

 

Oh yeah, here is more about the sneak mechanic Yes, all classes can sneak (and yes, you can always sneak).

 

Again, thank you posting dev comments. I don't frequent formspring, so I miss anything that's posted there and not here.

 

My intent was not to relativize your evidence. I wanted to point out how heavily you are relying on interpretation and extrapolation. What you are saying those comment mean is not there at all. You are stretching the available information to suit your conclusions, and stretching quite a lot if the things you posted are what you are basing everything on.

 

Your new link doesn't even mention sneaking. I'm starting to think I'm missing something, so please quote out the sentence or so I should be reading. I'm don't see where you are getting your conclusions from. The only thing I'm getting from that link is that Sawyer is attempting to design an xp system that encourages different approaches to any given problem and doesn't specifically reward grinding. None of that sounds bad to me.

[Gfted1]

Your new link doesn't even mention sneaking. I'm starting to think I'm missing something, so please quote out the sentence or so I should be reading.

Click the "view more comments" link.

[Stun]

Avoiding combat by sneaking past every encounter is not demanding

HA. You're stating an assumption as fact. That may be true in the Infinity engine games, but You have no idea how difficult successfully stealthing past encounters is going to be in this game. Josh has been deliberately vague on the subject. And for that matter, we don't know how easy combat is going to be either.

 

I can totally see them making a system where combat ends up being the fall-back, "if all else fails", option for the lousy character builds who lack the skills to complete quests in more complicated, dynamic ways.

but it yields the same amount of xp.

This is the twilight-zone section of the internet. Must be. Because just about everywhere else, the notion of rewarding players for coming up with more creative solutions to problems is actually applauded. In fact.... I'd argue that by keeping the EXP rewards equal, Obsidian is still not doing it right. Non-combat solutions to combat encounters should yield *more* exp than just mindlessly smashing every hostile you see.

 

 

I don't know how your DM handled things in your Pen and Paper D&D sessions, but mine awarded us massive XP bonuses if we actually thought outside the box and managed to trick our way past an encounter.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Stun

[Wirdjos]

Thanks, Gfted1. Like I said, I have no formspring experience. I was missing quite a lot there.

 

After seeing all of the comments, it does look more heavily implied that all classes will have some access to sneaking. A more pacifist route being possible also seems to be somewhat implied, though it is directly stated that pure combat 'challenges' ( I take that to mean objectives or quests) are currently in the design. I still haven't seen either thing directly stated though. While I wouldn't consider that part of the 'burden of proof' for making the claims you have, Helm, I would appreciate having any direct statements of that sort to pull out when making my own arguments.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Wirdjos

[PrimeJunta]

Avoiding combat by sneaking past every encounter is not demanding

We really don't view it as the easy way out. We want it to be gameplay on its own that requires observation and adaptation -- especially if you're actually using it to move through unaware hostiles. If you want to use it for light scouting/pre-combat positioning at range, it should be commensurately less risky.

Are you claiming that you have a better idea of what the relative difficulty of sneaking as opposed to fighting is going to be than the game's lead designer?

 

Are you familiar with the concept of invincible ignorance, by any chance?

[Helm]

 

Avoiding combat by sneaking past every encounter is not demanding

HA. You're stating an assumption as fact. That may be true in the Infinity engine games, but You have no idea how difficult successfully stealthing past encounters is going to be in this game. Josh has been deliberately vague on the subject. And for that matter, we don't know how easy combat is going to be either.

Sawyer has already described the sneak mechanic a little. Check the links I posted (the one you apparetnly refused to check).

 

And why is sneaking so much more demanding? LOL. If you fail sneaking, then you just have to fight. Wow, what a demanding mechanic.

I can totally see them making a system where combat ends up being the fall-back, "if all else fails", option for the lousy character builds who lack the skills to complete quests in more complicated, dynamic ways.

You are 100% correct. Sneaking is always the best option, those who fail must engage in pointless combat.

 

Not to mention that sneaking is not required to avoid combat.

 

 

but it yields the same amount of xp.

This is the twilight-zone section of the internet. Must be. Because just about everywhere else, the notion of rewarding players for coming up with more creative solutions to problems is actually applauded. In fact.... I'd argue that by keeping the EXP rewards equal, Obsidian is still not doing it right. Non-combat solutions to combat encounters should yield *more* exp than just mindlessly smashing every hostile you see.

 

I don't know how your DM handled things in your Pen and Paper D&D sessions, but mine awarded us massive XP bonuses if we actually thought outside the box and managed to trick our way past an encounter.

This really must be the twilight-zone section of the internet, because you refuse to read what I write. Not to mention that I am constantly repeating myself because of your epic lack of comprehension skills.

 

 If I make a wise decision and sneak past the guards so that they don't

kill the hostages, then I should be rewarded for that. If I simply avoid combat, then I should not be rewarded. If I engage in combat to kill evil child murdering and pillaging orcs, then I should be rewarded..... And many more examples.

 

I want to be rewarded for the most wise and demanding decisions. YOU (and the other combat haters) just want to be rewarded for sneaking past or avoiding every combat situation.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Helm

[Doppelschwert]

 

If you want to make a point then its your job to search for the corresponding update, not ours.

 

By now I'm pretty sure he's just a troll. He's making stuff up as he goes and is twisting every fact into supporting his case, no matter how ridiculous his exxaggeration gets.

 

As if you'd be able to avoid most of the combat while the devs clearly stated on this forum that you won't be able to evade most of the combat but only parts of it.

Naw, you're just whining because you can't accept the truth.

 

So, I may be a troll, but you are a whining idiot.

 

I am looking for the link(s) now. Please be patient and don't **** your pants again.

If fighting is fun, I'll fight even if the reward is smaller, because having fun is the whole damn point of playing a game.

Right, like in the Zelda games for example. You just kept on killing everything like a moron (even though it was pointless) for phun. lol

 

As a start, I don't like being called an idiot or a moron so I reported your post. Apart from that, I do kill enemies in zelda games when I feel like it, because if I wanted to play a game where I have to solve puzzles without ever having to fight enemies, I'd play an adventure instead. And if I'm tired of a dungeon, I still have the option to walk past enemies - thats the whole point, because its meaningless, I can freely decide whether I want to fight them or not. Rewarding exp for killing things, on the other hand, just punishes you for not being a murderous maniac.

 

^

Not how I solved the quest, but how wise my decisions were and how demanding it was. Juat like I said.

 

If I make a wise decision and sneak past the guards so that they don't kill the hostages, then I should be rewarded for that. If I simply avoid combat, then I should not be rewarded. If I engage in combat to kill evil child murdering and pillaging orcs, then I should be rewarded..... And many more examples.

 

This is an RPG. Character development (improving your combat (!) skills) is one of the most important aspects. You reward the player for making wise and demanding decisions. Just like it always has been and always should be. But this is not what we are getting.

This is your opinion and that is fine. However, acting like this is the only way things should be is rather close-minded. Moreover, I don't see how basing exp on how wise a decision is is practical:

Who gets to decide which course of action is the wisest thing to do?

Me? The government? Common Sense? You?

Either one option stands out as clearly better and the decision is meaningless or there are ties in efficiency. And if you want to have any element of uncertainty, you can't make any wise decisions:

Because then there are instances where either you're rewarded for something that sounded like a wise decision but ended pretty bad in practice or the other way around.

More to the point, decisions are not only about problem solving but also about defining the corresponding characters by the way they would be solving that particular problem. From a roleplaying point of view, many options over the course of the game would be out of character anyway and you'd be punishing players for playing a character they wanted to play consistently. Because you know, this is a RPG after all, just as you said it yourself.

 

About your links, others have already stated that you only interpret them in a way thats serving your cause although many things are simply assumptions of yours.

[Wirdjos]

 

 

Avoiding combat by sneaking past every encounter is not demanding

HA. You're stating an assumption as fact. That may be true in the Infinity engine games, but You have no idea how difficult successfully stealthing past encounters is going to be in this game. Josh has been deliberately vague on the subject. And for that matter, we don't know how easy combat is going to be either.

Sawyer has already described the sneak mechanic a little. Check the links I posted (the one you apparetnly refused to check).

 

And why is sneaking so much more demanding? LOL. If you fail sneaking, then you just have to fight. Wow, what a demanding mechanic.

 

Underlined, bolded, italicised, and increased the size on that one for you. Stun is right, Sawyer has been deliberately vauge on the actual mechanics for sneaking. Nowhere in those links you put up was the actual gameplay mechanic for sneaking explained. We know very little about what it will take to sneak and what the consequence for failing to sneak after attempting it will be. I feel that you are assuming a lot here.

 

And the reason you keep having to repeat yourself is that you have scant little evidence for the bold claims that you keep repeating. (Hint: People don't agree/believe you)

[Helm]

 

 

 

Avoiding combat by sneaking past every encounter is not demanding

HA. You're stating an assumption as fact. That may be true in the Infinity engine games, but You have no idea how difficult successfully stealthing past encounters is going to be in this game. Josh has been deliberately vague on the subject. And for that matter, we don't know how easy combat is going to be either.

Sawyer has already described the sneak mechanic a little. Check the links I posted (the one you apparetnly refused to check).

 

And why is sneaking so much more demanding? LOL. If you fail sneaking, then you just have to fight. Wow, what a demanding mechanic.

 

Underlined, bolded, italicised, and increased the size on that one for you. Stun is right, Sawyer has been deliberately vauge on the actual mechanics for sneaking. Nowhere in those links you put up was the actual gameplay mechanic for sneaking explained. We know very little about what it will take to sneak and what the consequence for failing to sneak after attempting it will be. I feel that you are assuming a lot here.

 

And the reason you keep having to repeat yourself is that you have scant little evidence for the bold claims that you keep repeating. (Hint: People don't agree/believe you)

But he said enough. If you FAIL SNEAKING, then you just have to engage in pointless combat. EVERY CLASS CAN SNEAK. Etc. my god. What do you think will happen if you fail sneaking, will your party instantly die or what?

 

Not to mention that you can just avoid combat without sneaking.

 

BTW, you probably do believe me (I don't think you are stupid), you just hate making the most demanding wise choice, you just want to sneak past every single combat situation and receive the exact same rewards for doing so.

 

Yup. You are true combat haters.

[Helm]

And the reason you keep having to repeat yourself is that you have scant little evidence for the bold claims that you keep repeating. (Hint: People don't agree/believe you)

Oh, there are quite a few that see it the same way I do. They are just not posting atm. Maybe they gave up, i dunno. 

Not to mention that you are constantly insulted by the combat haters for posting your opinion. The combat haters are real passionate and aggressive.

[Stun]

Sneaking is a mechanic that becomes much much MUCH more convoluted/difficult when you're controlling an entire party. Sawyer gave a theoretical, and very general outline about different degrees of difficulty (ie. it will be easier to avoid detection when you're 15 feet away than it will be when you're 5 feet away. He also hinted that rogues will, by the nature of their class skills, have an easier time sneaking) But he didn't, at all, say whether sneaking will be easier or more difficult relative to combat (which is what WE are discussing here)

 

More importantly, he did NOT address the chances of success when your entire party is trying to sneak, nor did he mention any variables that affect even solo stealth (day vs. night; light armor vs heavy; Line of sight; enemy numbers; environments; enemy levels; Enemy mages with detection spells; gear that gives stealth bonuses; Gear that reduces stealth success; player actions while in stealth. etc... etc...)

 

Helm, you can only go so far with the pontifications before it becomes clear to everyone that the entire point of your posts is to criticize the developer, and not the actual game mechanic.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Stun

[Helm]

This is your opinion and that is fine. However, acting like this is the only way things should be is rather close-minded. Moreover, I don't see how basing exp on how wise a decision is is practical:

Who gets to decide which course of action is the wisest thing to do?

Me? The government? Common Sense? You?

No, let the game designer make that decision for you. Sneaking and avoiding combat is always the best option because it yields the best results. That is what you want, right? Easy no brainer stuff where the outcome is always the same... unless you actually fail sneaking and have to engage in that pointless combat. But then you can just Press F9 and reload.

[Helm]

Sneaking is a mechanic that becomes much much MUCH more convoluted/difficult when you're controlling an entire party.

Yeah, if you fail in PE, then you have to engage in a pointless combat situation. The morons who fail at sneaking must fight. I got that already. Stop repeating yourself.

Helm, you can only go so far with the pontifications before it becomes clear to everyone that the entire point of your posts is to criticize the developer, and not the actual game mechanic.

Are you are trying to say I have no problem with the mechanic, just with the developer? lol

[Stun]

First off, this whole "EVERY CLASS CAN SNEAK" thing you keep harping on is hardly a talking point. Every class can sneak in 3rd edition D&D as well.

 

 

Second:

What do you think will happen if you fail sneaking, will your party instantly die or what?

I imagine death is a very real possibility, yes, if you built your party up to rely on stealth, and didn't prepare to have to fight...and then you failed to successfully sneak past that massive encounter....and now you have to fight....

 

I know BG2 punished you harshly for failing to sneak past, say, a group of Beholders. For sneaky characters, getting spotted IS a consequence for failure, just like getting disarmed is for a warrior.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Stun

[Wirdjos]

But he said enough. If you FAIL SNEAKING, then you just have to engage in pointless combat. EVERY CLASS CAN SNEAK. Etc. my god. What do you think will happen if you fail sneaking, will your party instantly die or what?

 

Not to mention that you can just avoid combat without sneaking.

 

BTW, you probably do believe me (I don't think you are stupid), you just hate making the most demanding wise choice, you just want to sneak past every single combat situation and receive the exact same rewards for doing so.

 

Yup. You are true combat haters.

 

I don't think enough has been discussed about the sneaking system to make those judgements. We don't know how a character gets the ability to sneak, we don't know how that ability is improved, we don't know how all classes will gain the ability, and we don't know what limits different classes might face with the ability.

 

As for possible punishments for failing a sneak attempt: you could alert far more enemies than you could reasonably fight, you could lose the ability to properly position your party, or you could damage relations with various factions. Any of those things would cause me to think twice before trying to sneak my way through combat and that's coming from someone with no game design experience. I'm sure others could think of more.

 

I would also mention that I do tend to enjoy combat and often find sneaking tedious and boring. I personally will likely directly engage in combat more often than avoiding it.

[Helm]

 

 

Avoiding combat by sneaking past every encounter is not demanding

We really don't view it as the easy way out. We want it to be gameplay on its own that requires observation and adaptation -- especially if you're actually using it to move through unaware hostiles. If you want to use it for light scouting/pre-combat positioning at range, it should be commensurately less risky.

Are you claiming that you have a better idea of what the relative difficulty of sneaking as opposed to fighting is going to be than the game's lead designer?

 

Are you familiar with the concept of invincible ignorance, by any chance?

 

 

If you fail sneaking, you engage in a pointless combat. If you choose to fight, then you uh, engage in pointless combat.

 

LOL. What a major difference. You couldn't figure that one out by yourself? My god.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Helm