Solving The Rest Problem: Limited resting, or respawning enemies?

[Infinitron]

Regardless, I'm new to the forum, so you should point me to quotes if there are some, not make vague allusions.  

 

 

My apologies.

 

Check out this post, it's a pretty good explanation of the design philosophy behind Project Eternity: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63091-josh-sawyer-on-miss-and-hit/page-5?do=findComment&comment=1296177

[Gumbercules]

What's the difference between being able to rest anywhere or being able to rest unlimited times in a nearby designated rest spot? It just takes a bit more time. There needs to be a harder limit.

 

 

Oh, OK. Yeah, in that case it's probably best to go with a default of one of your two suggestions, with the option to disable it in the difficulty settings. Or the reverse, if they think it'll lead to too much outcry.

[Prometheus]

 

 

 

Where? If you mean the "Dungeon Simulator 2014" thing, I'm not talking about simulating increased patrols or any kind of real change to the dungeon. They'll already be designing n combat encounters per dungeon. I'm suggesting they design n+1 encounters instead, where the +1 is an encounter designed around the rest area.

 

No:

 

Have you considered adding a "rest resource" to PE, like Tents in traditional JRPGs? If you have rest areas within dungeons, that could help prevent people from constantly backtracking to them in order to refill their health, trivializing the dungeon.

 

What's the difference between being able to rest anywhere or being able to rest unlimited times in a nearby designated rest spot? It just takes a bit more time. There needs to be a harder limit.

 

The difference is that it takes time and most people will try to avoid this time. I think, if the game is balanced most people will try the next encounter and reload if they die. And only if they died a few times they will go back to the resting spot.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Prometheus

[Infinitron]

The difference is that it takes time and most people will try to avoid this time. I think, if the game is balanced most people will try the next encounter and reload if they die. And only if they died a few times they will go back to the resting spot.

 

 

 

 

That's probably true, if the rest spot is far away enough. Like maybe back in town.

 

I don't think anybody is suggesting anything as extreme as forbidding the player from returning to town (although it could be cool if there were dungeons that trapped the player inside).

Edited June 12, 2013 by Infinitron

[Gumbercules]

Of the two options, I think I would prefer limiting the amount of rests to respawning the enemies. It's less busywork for the player, plus it's probably more realistic since there comes a point where additional sleep doesn't fix anything. And it helps maintain forward momentum inside a dungeon, rather than turning into Groundhog Day.

[Captain Shrek]

Either way of solving the problem (Rest anywhere/go to resting place as often as you want - they are equivalent  vs. Regenerate everything) is a terrible idea. Both of them trivialize encounters. Even worse, they decide the kind of encounters you get.

 

The best way is to make resting a resource.

IE games never got many things right. Some of it is encounter design. They have great mage battles. That is all they have in terms of encoutner design. IWD/2 are some of the worst games to play just because you have to practically maw through trash dungeons one after another.

 

The way of avoiding this is making resting a limited option that is skill dependent.

 

Take for example the recent mediocre RP game that is fun to play for first half an hour or so, Expeditions conquistador. The game allows you to rest anywhere, but with the possibility that rations run out. That is good design, right there.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Captain Shrek

[Jajo]

I don't like respawning monsters. It just favors certain kind of parties  too much. Resting in restricted areas or time limited resting seems more than enough to me.

If Sawyer feels, that unlimited resting in designited areas is still too loose, I'd introduce two kinds of resting areas. One type can only be used once per day and the other (like an inn) unlimited number of times. This way combat specialized parties still have a significant edge in rough places, since they don't need to backtrack nearly as much.

[Gfted1]

Wont players then just buy a billion rations and carry them around in our portable-hole-of-no-weight?

[eschaton]

The difference is that it takes time and most people will try to avoid this time. I think, if the game is balanced most people will try the next encounter and reload if they die. And only if they died a few times they will go back to the resting spot.

re needs to be a harder limit.

 

I'm going to be honest.  Even though the random encounters in BG1/BG2 were largely trash, and unless I had a low HP mage who got stuck near some enemies there was no danger, I often used to reload.  Not because I couldn't deal with the encounter - just because grinding through the mooks wasn't fun to me (minimal XP, minimal gear, no story advancement, etc).  But they still did their job to disincentivize me from resting anywhere, particularly back in the 90s, as the save/load time was quite long back then.  So in practice I didn't rest except when I absolutely had to anyway.  

Edited June 12, 2013 by eschaton

[Captain Shrek]

Wont players then just buy a billion rations and carry them around in our portable-hole-of-no-weight?

Dude. Stop being scary.

 

What kind of an idiot would allow a game to be broken so that the players can get infinite gold and resources.

 

Oh wait.

 

Obsidian!

 

  My mistake.

[Infinitron]

I don't like respawning monsters. It just favors certain kind of parties  too much. Resting in restricted areas or time limited resting seems more than enough to me.

If Sawyer feels, that unlimited resting in designited areas is still too loose, I'd introduce two kinds of resting areas. One type can only be used once per day and the other (like an inn) unlimited number of times. This way combat specialized parties still have a significant edge in rough places, since they don't need to backtrack nearly as much.

 

Remember that in PE, all classes are fully combat-proficient, so there isn't really such a thing as a "combat specialized party" (though a given party might not be well-suited for the challenges in a particular dungeon).

 

I agree that respawning seems like an "inelegant" solution, and there's something satisfying about knowing you've cleared a dungeon forever. It does get the job done, though.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Infinitron

[Gfted1]

 

Wont players then just buy a billion rations and carry them around in our portable-hole-of-no-weight?

Dude. Stop being scary.

 

What kind of an idiot would allow a game to be broken so that the players can get infinite gold and resources.

 

Oh wait.

 

Obsidian!

 

  My mistake.

 

Exactly. Ill be able to r-click {loot all} and carry every single pickup-able item on the continent without thought or effort. Ill be rolling in gold before I finish clearing the basement of rats. Im absolutely going to "game" the system (if forced to via these mechanics) to decrease the pain caused by the mechanics. Because that's how I choose to play my game.

[Captain Shrek]

 

 

Wont players then just buy a billion rations and carry them around in our portable-hole-of-no-weight?

Dude. Stop being scary.

 

What kind of an idiot would allow a game to be broken so that the players can get infinite gold and resources.

 

Oh wait.

 

Obsidian!

 

  My mistake.

 

Exactly. Ill be able to r-click {loot all} and carry every single pickup-able item on the continent without thought or effort. Ill be rolling in gold before I finish clearing the basement of rats. Im absolutely going to "game" the system (if forced to via these mechanics) to decrease the pain caused by the mechanics. Because that's how I choose to play my game.

 

The central idea is there ought to be no pain in a game. Frustration != Difficulty.

[Gfted1]

The central idea is there ought to be no pain in a game. Frustration != Difficulty.

Amen. Unfortunately, that's not how PE rolls for me as most the mechanics details released so far (healing, resting, kill XP, inventory) all come attached with disincentives designed to remove "degenerative" gameplay. I wants me some degenerative gameplay dammit!

[Karkarov]

Im for a resting mechanic exactly like the IE games. You can rest most places, some places you could not, and there was always a threat of random encounters unless you were in an inn.

 

I don't get why some of you just want a game where every mechanic has some form of punishment, all in the name of your ideas of "realism". Why wouldn't the thieves respawn? Because they are dead. The whole camp isn't going to be reinforced while you rest for 8 hours. The dungeon should respawn full every time you rest? What? Even if it did, whats the point? Lets say you get half way through a dungeon level and have to rest because your friggin Health has zero mechanics to replenish besides sleeping ( ). So your party pops a squat and rests. Now the enemies behind you that you already cleared have respawned and you still have the enemies ahead of you that you didn't go through yet. Who cares about the respawn behind you? Nobody going to go back through that area anyway because you already cleared it. Unless you are proposing that the player should have to evacuate the entire floor and go back to town to rest, which sounds like a pile of suck.

This isn't really how I would have said it but... yeah.

 

Some respawn is fine, but you should not have total respawn because you rested. Not only is it not realistic, it makes on logical sense either.  I am a bandit, I heard sounds of death and murder from the forest base we use... I go back there to find all my friends dead and butchered.  100 yards away 6 guys are napping.  I may be a bandit, but I am not stupid, I aint hanging around to get the same treatment.

 

Also limiting it to needing an item like a Tent or Cabin ala final fantasy is not a good idea.  If you do that I will just buy tons of tents which defeats the whole purpose behind having them,  I mean... that's what I did in Final Fantasy and it worked fine there.  Keep it to limited resting spots, maybe have "some" respawn but not total.  That's plenty.

[Sensuki]

I'm all for random events taking place and stuff, but not scripted respawned enemies I don't think. That would just be a bit of monotony. They did say there were gonna be skills for avoiding random encounters on the worldmap or something.

 

If it makes sense for an area to refill after you clear it, by all means fill it back up. But if it doesn't then yeah nah.

[Jajo]

Remember that in PE, all classes are fully combat-proficient, so there isn't really such a thing as a "combat specialized party" (though a given party might not be well-suited for the challenges in a particular dungeon).

 

I agree that respawning seems like an "inelegant" solution, and there's something satisfying about knowing you've cleared a dungeon forever. It does get the job done, though.

 

I must have missed that developer response or totally forgotten it. I believe you, but I just find it very hard to believe.

As far as I knew every class could be combat efficient, but the game is still being designed to allow completion for "fight your way through it" and "talk you way through it" party builds/setups. I just find it incredulous that the latter would be anywhere near as combat efficient as the former, therefore the segregation in my post. Monster respawning is after all only about combat.

[Jajo]

Some respawn is fine, but you should not have total respawn because you rested. Not only is it not realistic, it makes on logical sense either.  I am a bandit, I heard sounds of death and murder from the forest base we use... I go back there to find all my friends dead and butchered.  100 yards away 6 guys are napping.  I may be a bandit, but I am not stupid, I aint hanging around to get the same treatment.

This would be the ideal solution, but unfortunately, it's been the one solution explicitly ruled out. I don't have the quote at hand, but Sawyer said, that this would effectively mean designing each area twice and there's just no budget for this.

[Karkarov]

This would be the ideal solution, but unfortunately, it's been the one solution explicitly ruled out. I don't have the quote at hand, but Sawyer said, that this would effectively mean designing each area twice and there's just no budget for this.

 

For sure.  I was just trying to make a logic point on why respawns don't make much sense.  Who wants to repopulate the area when a group of wandering death dealers is still sitting around.  Leave and a week of in game time goes by?  I could understand a full respawn then.  But an 8 hour rest, while you are still in the same area?  No way.

[Infinitron]

 

Remember that in PE, all classes are fully combat-proficient, so there isn't really such a thing as a "combat specialized party" (though a given party might not be well-suited for the challenges in a particular dungeon).

 

I agree that respawning seems like an "inelegant" solution, and there's something satisfying about knowing you've cleared a dungeon forever. It does get the job done, though.

 

I must have missed that developer response or totally forgotten it. I believe you, but I just find it very hard to believe.

As far as I knew every class could be combat efficient, but the game is still being designed to allow completion for "fight your way through it" and "talk you way through it" party builds/setups. I just find it incredulous that the latter would be anywhere near as combat efficient as the former, therefore the segregation in my post. Monster respawning is after all only about combat.

 

 

Your characters will have separate skill point pools for combat and non-combat skills, so you literally won't be able to build a character who isn't proficient in something related to combat (and non-combat).

 

(That may sound dumbed down, but it's actually not really different from D&D, where combat was mainly governed by your stats - Strength, Dexterity, Constitution - that could be upgraded occasionally, while non-combat skills like Diplomacy and Bluff were part of the skill system, which was mostly dedicated to non-combat skills.)

Edited June 12, 2013 by Infinitron

[eschaton]

 

Your characters will have separate skill point pools for combat and non-combat skills, so you literally won't be able to build a character who isn't proficient in something related to combat (and non-combat).

 

(That may sound dumbed down, but it's actually not really different from D&D, where combat was mainly governed by your stats - Strength, Dexterity, Constitution - that could be upgraded occasionally, while non-combat skills like Diplomacy and Bluff were part of the skill system, which was mostly dedicated to non-combat skills.)

 

 

This is veering off topic, but it's still unclear how casters will be dealt with in said system.  In D&D, not all spells are either offensive attacks or defensive buffs.  Some have no utility in combat at all, and others have utility both inside and outside of combat.  Unless they have a "non-combat spell" option for casters, I don't know how this will be handled.  

[Infinitron]

This is veering off topic, but it's still unclear how casters will be dealt with in said system.  In D&D, not all spells are either offensive attacks or defensive buffs.  Some have no utility in combat at all, and others have utility both inside and outside of combat.  Unless they have a "non-combat spell" option for casters, I don't know how this will be handled.  

 

 

What's the problem? If your mage finds some utility spells he can put them in his spell grimoire and memorize them, but he might need to switch them out for combat spells for tougher battles.

 

Granted, you will gain some spells on level up. I suppose you're referring to a situation where a mage could choose non-combat spells exclusively on level-up, or something like that. I don't know, maybe they won't let you do that. Or maybe it won't matter because you'll find enough combat spells in the game world to compensate.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Infinitron

[eschaton]

 

What's the problem? If your mage finds some utility spells he can put them in his spell grimoire and memorize them, but he might need to switch them out for combat spells for tougher battles.

 

Granted, you will gain some spells on level up. I suppose you're referring to a situation where a mage could choose non-combat spells exclusively on level-up, or something like that. I don't know, maybe they won't let you do that. Or maybe it won't matter because you'll find enough combat spells in the game world to compensate.

 

The point is magic is not clearly a combat or a non-combat skill.  If it's similar to AD&D, it will be mostly, but not entirely, combat, but some will be non-combat related.  Meaning they either need to shave off the non-combat spells as skills, or spellcasters really do have less combat utility than non-spellcasters.  

[Bartimaeus]

The point is magic is not clearly a combat or a non-combat skill.  If it's similar to AD&D, it will be mostly, but not entirely, combat, but some will be non-combat related.  Meaning they either need to shave off the non-combat spells as skills, or spellcasters really do have less combat utility than non-spellcasters.

As a mage, that shouldn't really be that big of a problem, for the reason mentioned by Infinitron. But if you were playing something like a sorcerer...eh...

Edited June 12, 2013 by Bartimaeus

[Infinitron]

 

 

What's the problem? If your mage finds some utility spells he can put them in his spell grimoire and memorize them, but he might need to switch them out for combat spells for tougher battles.

 

Granted, you will gain some spells on level up. I suppose you're referring to a situation where a mage could choose non-combat spells exclusively on level-up, or something like that. I don't know, maybe they won't let you do that. Or maybe it won't matter because you'll find enough combat spells in the game world to compensate.

 

The point is magic is not clearly a combat or a non-combat skill.  If it's similar to AD&D, it will be mostly, but not entirely, combat, but some will be non-combat related.  Meaning they either need to shave off the non-combat spells as skills, or spellcasters really do have less combat utility than non-spellcasters.  

 

 

Again, I'm not sure how that follows. Do you remember how AD&D wizards worked? Spells weren't a skill, stat or feat. They weren't a character attribute that you developed through level-ups. They were tangible things you found in the world, scribed into your spellbook, and memorized at will.

 

If you wanted to be at maximum combat readiness, you'd memorize lots of combat spells. And there were plenty of them to be found.

 

Surely you're not claiming that just because non-combat spells exist, that somehow makes wizards less combat-proficient than other classes???

 

In any case, Project Eternity wizards will have other offensive capabilities besides spells.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Infinitron