My thoughts on project Eternity

[Malekith]

 

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.

Even if that is true, you can still fight all you want and you will get your XP. Nothing stops you from playing the game exactly like you played BG2. What is your problem with a "combat hater" geting the same reward in his own, completelly seperate game? How is that affecting your own gameplay?

And be4 "but i feel like an idiot if i play the way i want if i know that i could have sneaked and be done with it", whats the matter? You can't control yourself? That's the main complain i have seen from most people who hate Sawyer's changes(i don't know if you are one of them), that it catters to "idiots who can't control themselves"

 

 

Sawyer said that if people avoid all combat is not how the devs want the game to be played, and if it happens it means they did a crap job. They just changed a "degenarate gameplay" for another. So he knows your fears and i'm sure they will try to balance it correct.Most of the problems you mentioned are pretty obvious, so unless they are complete idiots they wii see to them. I trust them. If you think that Sayer and Cain don't know what they're doing why did you backed it in the first place? 

Edited January 30, 2013 by Malekith

[Helm]

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.

And that is why you could sneak past every combat situation in Icewind Dale, right?

 

 

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...

 

 

Death is a very real possibilty by just engaging in combat without sneaking. By sneaking this possibility is only minimized. Edited January 30, 2013 by Helm

[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.

And that is why you could sneak past every combat situation in Icewind Dale, right?

Considering how common potions and spells of invisibility were... yes. lol But everyone had Sneak as an ability in TOEE (for example).... a game specifically named-dropped in the PE kickstater videos....

 

Death is a very real possibilty by just engaging in combat without sneaking. By sneaking this possibility is only minimized.

Depends on the sneak-ers, actually. If I've got a party of barbarians, I'm probably not going to waste skill-points/level ups on advancing my sneak skills. Instead, I'll just build my characters up to focus on combat mastery. But my Rogue and mage parties? Not so much, I'll probably level them to be better sneaks, which means they'll probably not be that great in a straight up fight... which means failing a stealth check could be disasterous. Edited January 30, 2013 by Stun

[Helm]

Even if that is true, you can still fight all you want and you will get your XP. Nothing stops you from playing the game exactly like you played BG2. What is your problem with a "combat hater" geting the same reward in his own, completelly seperate game? How is that affecting your own gameplay?

And why should I engage in combat if avoiding combat yields the best results? I could kill in Deus Ex too, but why should I? Stealth yields the best results in Deus Ex.

 

And why should somebody who hates stealth play a stealth game? Why should someone who hates combat play a tactical combat based game? Why should somebody who hates real-time-strategy games play an RTS game?

 

etc. etc. etc.

[Malekith]

 

Even if that is true, you can still fight all you want and you will get your XP. Nothing stops you from playing the game exactly like you played BG2. What is your problem with a "combat hater" geting the same reward in his own, completelly seperate game? How is that affecting your own gameplay?

And why should I engage in combat if avoiding combat yields the best results? I could kill in Deus Ex too, but why should I? Stealth yields the best results in Deus Ex.

 

And why should somebody who hates stealth play a stealth game? Why should someone who hates combat play a tactical combat based game? Why should somebody who hates real-time-strategy games play an RTS game?

 

etc. etc. etc.

Read the rest of my post.

And be4 "but i feel like an idiot if i play the way i want if i know that i could have sneaked and be done with it", whats the matter? You can't control yourself? That's the main complain i have seen from most people who hate Sawyer's changes(i don't know if you are one of them), that it catters to "idiots who can't control themselves"

 

 

Sawyer said that if people avoid all combat is not how the devs want the game to be played, and if it happens it means they did a crap job. They just changed a "degenarate gameplay" for another. So he knows your fears and i'm sure they will try to balance it correct.Most of the problems you mentioned are pretty obvious, so unless they are complete idiots they wii see to them. I trust them. If you think that Sayer and Cain don't know what they're doing why did you backed it in the first place?

 In IE games resting after every encounter yields the best results.Geting the quest XP and then killing the guestgiver yields the best results.That's not how the game has to be played.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Malekith

[Helm]

 

 

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.

And that is why you could sneak past every combat situation in Icewind Dale, right?

 

Considering how common potions and spells of invisibility were... yes. lol But everyone had Sneak as an ability in TOEE (for example).... a game specifically named-dropped in the PE kickstater videos....

What?

 

Miss classic cRPGs like Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment? So do we! Introducing Obsidian's PROJECT ETERNITY.

 

Project Eternity will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense

combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment.

 

Death is a very real possibilty by just engaging in combat without sneaking. By sneaking this possibility is only minimized.

Depends on the sneak-ers, actually. If I've got a party of warriros, I'm probably not going to waste skill-points/level ups on advancing my sneak skills. Instead, I'll just build my characters up to focus on combat. But my Rogue and mage parties? Not so much, I'll probably level them toi be better sneaks, which means they'll probably not be that great in a straight up fight... which means failing a sneak check could be disasterous.

A typical party will not be mono-classed.

 

Stealth is a non-combat skill and uses non-combat xp pool. Combat abilities use the combat xp pool.

 

Which are both filled up with quest xp...............

[Helm]

 

 

Even if that is true, you can still fight all you want and you will get your XP. Nothing stops you from playing the game exactly like you played BG2. What is your problem with a "combat hater" geting the same reward in his own, completelly seperate game? How is that affecting your own gameplay?

And why should I engage in combat if avoiding combat yields the best results? I could kill in Deus Ex too, but why should I? Stealth yields the best results in Deus Ex.

 

And why should somebody who hates stealth play a stealth game? Why should someone who hates combat play a tactical combat based game? Why should somebody who hates real-time-strategy games play an RTS game?

 

etc. etc. etc.

Read the rest of my post.

And be4 "but i feel like an idiot if i play the way i want if i know that i could have sneaked and be done with it", whats the matter? You can't control yourself? That's the main complain i have seen from most people who hate Sawyer's changes(i don't know if you are one of them), that it catters to "idiots who can't control themselves"

 

 

Sawyer said that if people avoid all combat is not how the devs want the game to be played, and if it happens it means they did a crap job. They just changed a "degenarate gameplay" for another. So he knows your fears and i'm sure they will try to balance it correct.Most of the problems you mentioned are pretty obvious, so unless they are complete idiots they wii see to them. I trust them. If you think that Sayer and Cain don't know what they're doing why did you backed it in the first place?

 In IE games resting after every encounter yields the best results.Geting the quest XP and then killing the guestgiver yields the best results.That's not how the game has to be played.

Yeah, I couldn't control myself while playing Deus Ex, that is why I always used stealth. And I couldn't control myself while playing CoD, so I killed everyone who fired a gun at me.........................................................

 

And you're right, I shouldn't have backed this game.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Helm

[Stun]

 

Considering how common potions and spells of invisibility were... yes. lol But everyone had Sneak as an ability in TOEE (for example).... a game specifically named-dropped in the PE kickstater videos....

What?

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity

 

Fast forward to :37, see for yourself. a straight up Name drop of TOEE.

 

 

.

A typical party will not be mono-classed.

Since PE will have the adventurer's Hall, where we can make our own party, it's not up to Helm to decide what MY typical party will be.

 

 

 

.

Stealth is a non-combat skill and uses non-combat xp pool.

Does it? Do we know for a fact that Stealth will be in the non-combat skills column? I was under the impression that since it's tied to combat (backstabbing, Sneak attacking, combat positioning) that it might, in fact be classified as a combat skill.

 

But we would need Josh or Tim to clarify that.... and they have NOT as of yet.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Stun

[Valsuelm]

^

It wouldn't really matter to me, xp per monster or encounter, I wouldn't really care.

 

But sadly, as you know, you will not get any combat xp in PE at all.

Where exactly is it mentioned this is the case?

 

It's really bad idea imo to have no combat XP in PE. However I'd like to read the reasoning behind it.

[Gfted1]

 

^

It wouldn't really matter to me, xp per monster or encounter, I wouldn't really care.

 

But sadly, as you know, you will not get any combat xp in PE at all.

Where exactly is it mentioned this is the case?

 

It's really bad idea imo to have no combat XP in PE. However I'd like to read the reasoning behind it.

 

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63017-level-scaling-and-its-misuse/?p=1298328'>Here.

[TRX850]

^^^^ His description of going back to kill creatures is precisely why the reputation/faction system should handle the *consequences* of doing so, rather than removing kill xp.

 

If your intention is to remain in good standing with appropriate factions, then don't go back and kill everything.

 

If your intention is to antagonize various factions, then by all means.

 

They are developing the reputation/faction system anyway. Just let that handle it.

[SophosTheWise]

 

Are you serious? I think I've seldom read arguments so rabulistic and populistic. I don't hate classic RPGs, I'm a D&D player, I've played the IE games, I'm currently playing Ultima IV. But just because I enjoy classic RPGs doesn't mean I'm not open to new suggestions.

 

And new suggestions don't always mean that the game is going to be dumbed down. Believe me, I'm not one for popamole bullcrap. But still the IE games had its faults and I'm happy someone tries to make it better. If it's not better - well, they tried. I really don't get that nerdrage from the Codex and people like you. It almost seems as if your lives depend on wether a game is going to be awesome or not.

Ok, i'm a nerd, you are not a nerd. Whoever critcizes Sawyer is on a nerdrage.

 

You must have forgotten your intelligence +18 helmet.

>As for the point of Project Eternity - as I've said before there are different conceptions of what made these RPGs great, and frankly, I don't think the combat system was one of those things. I loved the stories, I loved the different characters, the wondrous places one could visit, the riddles and dungeons - the adventure. And I absolutely think that Project Eternity could make a better combat system - so just let the guys try it out, I mean holy ****, how hard and dramatic is that?

1) remove combat xp. No more xp for any combat whatsoever

2) implement a substantial stealth system for all classes

3) avoiding combat is not punished in any way, you still get excellent loot and the same amount of xp

4) combat can (almost) always be avoided

5) the tactical combat based game called project eternity is complete. The first tactical combat based game ever created where avoiding combat yields the best results.

 

Yup, they have really improved the combat alright. 100% pure incline.

 

 

No. Also, I don't get your obsession with Sawyer, would you care to explain? I'm not a fanboy of the aforementioned person, hell, he seems like a nice guy and that's it. I really don't get why you're always putting that guy into the centre of discussion. I absolutely don't care who you're criticizing, why should I? I care about HOW you are criticizing. I understand you're from the Codex and honestly - what is it with your massive egos over there? I mean, hell, everyone who actually writes in a forum is at least somehow a bit of a megalomaniac, but what is it with your "superiority"? Once again: there are different conceptions of what constitutes an RPG at its core - that's something that you seem to be incapable of accepting.

 

As far as I understand your five points are all about rewarding different approaches to playing equally, which is absolutely fair from a roleplaying (and I refer to this word as playing an assumed role, not to some other definition) point of view. If I want to ravage everything on my way to kill the Bandit King, so be it. 2) If I want to sneak my way into a camp, so be it. If I want to smooth talk 3) my way around some guards, so be it. These are all acts of roleplaying and I don't see how any one of those approaches is better than the next. It's - boldly said - a character decision. To me that's roleplaying.  1) And thinking too much about XP kills roleplaying (that's why in my Pathfinder group we don't have any XP, we gain a level when our DM says so). Of course you can avoid combat all the time. But do you think your Barbarian character would do that? Or would your lawful good Paladin really avoid combating the Orcs that are strolling around a wanderer's path and killing everyone they see? Roleplaying, while based on rulesets, is not all about rulesets. These rulesets exist imo to make adventure possible. If you start to exploit flaws in a system or avoid things such as combat because the other way is easier - then you're a bad roleplayer in my opinion. 

 

So it all boils down to you having a different understanding of RPG. It seems that PE is not the game for you because you seem to be looking for a Dungeon Crawler. 

It is your right not to like that, but please let go of your superiority complex. 

 

(Also go play Grimoire)

[Sylvanpyxie]

On this whole "Combat XP topic" - I don't understand the mentality that one specific option should yield more experience than any other.

 

As a Player, I like to get involved with my character and build up their personality as much as possible - I myself am disconnected from my decisions and I instead make my choices based on what my character would consider to be the "wisest" course of action. I don't understand why I should be penalized for that...

 

If I have a Rogue that wants to sneak past a load of crazy Barbarians in order to steal their treasure, why does she deserve less experience than someone else?

If I have a crazy Barbarian that wants to kill an entire camp of sneaky Rogues in order to steal their treasure, why does she deserve more experience?

 

Why does one of my characters deserve more experience than the other? Why should one character be punished and denied more experience, simply because she approaches a difficult scenario with a different solution? Is there actually a valid reason that my character experience should be dictated by what the Developers consider to be the "best" solution?

 

I don't like the idea of being punished simply because I choose to play my characters differently.... It honestly seems like a selfish concept to me.

Edited January 31, 2013 by Sylvanpyxie

[Lephys]

 

The term "Challenge rating" is 3rd Edition terminology. This terminology most certainly has NOT been around since the beginning, which can (arduously) be verified just by pulling out the Player's Handbooks and Dungeon Master's Guides and reading them.  If the party had zero risk in killing an opponent, the party got absolutely no XP, regardless of the level of the opponent.  Anyone who has actually had to DM those systems knows this.

No, the termininology has not been around since the beginning, even though it fits.

 

Let me get this straight... They made a change to old, "classic" D&D rules, and you're admitting it was an improvement. And yet, Josh Sawyer wants to make changes to old, "classic" gameplay mechanics, and they're INCAPABLE of being improvements because change = dumbing down?

 

He hates old games because he would change them? I like to change the clothes I wear on a daily basis. OBVIOUSLY I HATE ALL MY PREVIOUSLY-WORN CLOTHES! u_u

 

1) remove combat xp. No more xp for any combat whatsoever

2) implement a substantial stealth system for all classes

3) avoiding combat is not punished in any way, you still get excellent loot and the same amount of xp

4) combat can (almost) always be avoided

5) the tactical combat based game called project eternity is complete. The first tactical combat based game ever created where avoiding combat yields the best results.

 

Yup, they have really improved the combat alright. 100% pure incline.

 

And yet once more, wow...

 

1) No xp for any combat, ever? ... Really? Next you'll be saying "You actually LOSE XP every time you fight things!" It is a FACT that at least SOME amount of combat will grant XP, since some objectives will be combat only.

 

2) Define "substantial," Captain Exaggeration.

 

3) Once again, absolutely no basis for this. They've clearly stated that avoiding combat will have you lose out on things, but that magic chest full of goodies that enemies are protecting isn't going to phase into another dimension JUST because you got to it without killing all the people in the room. Just like sometimes you're going to have optional loot that you can only obtain by fighting (there will be no other way to get it.) Over the span of the entire game, you will not be utterly screwed one way or the other. i.e. "I snuck a lot, and now, at the last boss, I still just have this paper knife, T_T", OR, "I fought everything, but that other guy totally talked his way out of that situation, and he got a WAYYYYYYY better sword than I EVER got from any dead thing in the entire game!"

 

4) Now you're quite literally just making things up. You're not even misconstruing a quote or legitimate reference or anything here. They've NEVER ever said anything besides "The vast majority of the game will require combat."

 

5) This is just a culimination/summary of all the figments of your imagination.

 

You, sir, are paranoid. You won't believe or even CONSIDER anything other than your own "reality." Things are the way they are simply because you've decided they are.

 

You can respond with allllllll the words you like, and until you address reality and all examples from it, it's going to be meaningless.

Edited January 31, 2013 by Lephys

[Helm]

[bunch of whining]

"Flame, insult, flame. Whine."

Nothing new from you. You can't accept other opinions so you just whine, complain and flame.

On this whole "Combat XP topic" - I don't understand the mentality that one specific option should yield more experience than any other.

So you think that the easy and unwise path should give just as much xp as the wise and hard path. lol

 

Decisions are hard. I know. Sawyers system really is perfect for you.

[bunch of whining]

Well, at least I know you hate the IE games (just like the other flamers and whiners here), because you have just said that anybody who liked them is a complete moron. They used combat xp and rewarded you for making the hardest and most demanding decisions. Which is BAD according to you. lol. Even the 2 most popular PnP games (D&D and Pathfinder) reward you for combat! According to you they should be the ****tiest PnP systems that everybody who is not a moron refuses to play.

 

BTW, why are you even here if you hated the IE games and hate being rewarded for combat? PE is a spiritual successor to the IE games you know. (Ok, well, it was a spirtual successor to the IE games).

 

Not to mention that you are actually the paranoid one. You just love getting xp for crossing an imaginary line and getting the same amount of xp no matter what braindead decision you make... and you want to make sure it stays that way.

 

Flame all you want, you can't prove that quest only xp is better, because it has never been used in an IE style game. I can prove it, the IE games used combat xp and they were fantastic. Not to mention that combat xp makes sense in a combat based game. And it should stay that way.

Edited January 31, 2013 by Helm

[Helm]

 

 

 

 

Considering how common potions and spells of invisibility were... yes. lol But everyone had Sneak as an ability in TOEE (for example).... a game specifically named-dropped in the PE kickstater videos....

What?

 

 

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity

 

Fast forward to :37, see for yourself. a straight up Name drop of TOEE.

 

 

.

A typical party will not be mono-classed.

Since PE will have the adventurer's Hall, where we can make our own party, it's not up to Helm to decide what MY typical party will be.

 

 

 

.

Stealth is a non-combat skill and uses non-combat xp pool.

Does it? Do we know for a fact that Stealth will be in the non-combat skills column? I was under the impression that since it's tied to combat (backstabbing, Sneak attacking, combat positioning) that it might, in fact be classified as a combat skill.

 

But we would need Josh or Tim to clarify that.... and they have NOT as of yet.

 

 

1) so I can expect this game also to have be a spiritual successor to all of the games that were mentioned in the video? lol

 

2) stealth is a non-combat skill. I have to find the source on that too I guess.

 

3) make the party combination of your choice (even if it is unorthodox). You should be able to do that. But it should make the game really hard, we don't need an unbalanced no-brainer system.

[LadyCrimson]

After some review/thought, since I believe the original purpose of the thread creator has been achieved, I'm going to keep this one closed. Time to move on/take a break I think.

Those who wish to continue debating pros/cons of desired or announced game mechanics in PE can either join in one of the many already existing threads in the Gameplay & Mechanics forum or create a new topic for it there.

Edited January 31, 2013 by LadyCrimson