Update #58: Crafting with Tim Cain!

[LadyCrimson]

Well, on the one hand, I'm kinda sad I won't ever get to see the original vision they came up with, to see how it truly worked/felt first-hand instead of just assuming it would suck. But on the other hand, I never cry over the lack of a durability mechanic.

[Cultist]

 IMO it is wrong to portrait this decision like "now noobs will design PE!", because crafting Update was one of the most controversial of them all, that clearlly separated people over various issues(crafting-durabilty). I already presented en example, and will do so again, it's no different to changing Fallout 3 to FPS or Command & Conquer to Tib. Twilight, or Dragon Age into action slasher. Different scale but the same situation, which, in our case, was solved. IMO better solve it now and not to deal with alienating some part of the community.

 

It's always nice to see developers read and react to feedback. People somehow forget that Obsidian told us that Kickstarter allowed them more interaction with fandom. I can say that I was banned several times(and gained numerous warnings) on BSN in some discussions about controversial game concepts simply due to "We know better what you want" attitude)

Edited July 5, 2013 by Cultist

[Sacred_Path]

Any chance of keeping the durability mechanic?  Maybe attaching it to Expert mode?

I second this request.

[ManifestedISO]

 

Any chance of keeping the durability mechanic?  Maybe attaching it to Expert mode?

I second this request.

 

 

Very well, thirded. 

[Tuco Benedicto]

Absolutely ridiculous way to design a game. Whiny bitches on a forum which in no way constitute a majority of KS backers or cRPG players in general can make designers change something because they think it's "annoying" or "tedious".

 

Coming up Next on Project: Eternity - Reading what NPC's have to say and your quest journal is "not fun", quest compass inbound.

 

Hopefully they'll be something left of the character system before the game ships, before all the features get voted out by morons.

 

Embarrassing. 

[jethro]

I think that if there are no systemic money inputs (faucet) then there is no need for a systemic money output (sink). Since most monsters and loot are hand-placed, then there is only a limited (and known) amount of gold that can be gathered in the game.

 

The problem lies in that most players assume that these cRPGs have hand-placed, limited loot in the game, so as you continue to play, your chances of victory continue to dwindle (less money, means less chance of buying what you need/want to win).

 

I may be wrong, but AFAIK PE has a limited amount of money. You still need sinks to offer something in return for that money. Since the number of monsters is also limited, the degradation through combat would have been limited as well even though it looks like a systemic sink. 

 

I don't get what you mean with your last sentence. Loot may be limited, but so is the weaponry/armour you can buy and you can't put more than one item in any slot. As you continue to play your wealth increases (partly from having ever more expensive items on you), your experience increases. How can your chances of victory dwindle?

[Hormalakh]

 

Absolutely ridiculous way to design a game. Whiny bitches on a forum which in no way constitute a majority of KS backers or cRPG players in general can make designers change something because they think it's "annoying" or "tedious".

 

Coming up Next on Project: Eternity - Reading what NPC's have to say and your quest journal is "not fun", quest compass inbound.

 

Hopefully they'll be something left of the character system before the game ships, before all the features get voted out by morons.

 

Embarrassing. 

 

I do think a lot of people take these decisions that Obsidian makes too personally. It isn't a matter of who "won" or who "lost" the argument. At the end of the day, everyone wants the best RPG game that can be made, in whatever way we each think best.

 

The important point here is that Kickstarter has allowed us to speak directly to the developers and to share our thoughts with them on a personal level. There are an innumerable number of occasions where I've read posters on different forums say "Whoa! The developer is reading what I write" or something to that effect. At the end of the day, the developers always have the final say and the fact that a gamer's input matters more than a shareholder's is in-and-of-itself something to cherish.

 

 

 

I think that if there are no systemic money inputs (faucet) then there is no need for a systemic money output (sink). Since most monsters and loot are hand-placed, then there is only a limited (and known) amount of gold that can be gathered in the game.

 

The problem lies in that most players assume that these cRPGs have hand-placed, limited loot in the game, so as you continue to play, your chances of victory continue to dwindle (less money, means less chance of buying what you need/want to win).

 

I may be wrong, but AFAIK PE has a limited amount of money. You still need sinks to offer something in return for that money. Since the number of monsters is also limited, the degradation through combat would have been limited as well even though it looks like a systemic sink. 

 

I don't get what you mean with your last sentence. Loot may be limited, but so is the weaponry/armour you can buy and you can't put more than one item in any slot. As you continue to play your wealth increases (partly from having ever more expensive items on you), your experience increases. How can your chances of victory dwindle?

 

 

I'm sorry I wasn't being clear. With systemic money sinks (like item durability) that have no counteracting systemic faucets, the player begins to feel like s/he is in a race against himself: if the game was to continue on for an indeterminately long time (let's say 500 hours), then there exists the possibility that the game will not have any further sources of gold while still having a constant drain on gold. It's the metaphorical quicksand that the player must quickly dig himself out of because sooner or later, it will be impossible to finish the game because his party does not have enough resources to continue.

 

sooner or later, you've exhausted all your resource points, but yet you have a money sink gnawing at your heels. At the same time, combat challenges are increasing and enemies are tougher to kill. The worry is that you basically cannot finish the game because you can't buy the quest item that you needed to pass because you were wasting your time as your money slowly depleted.

Edited July 5, 2013 by Hormalakh

[Eiphel]

However, it is clear from discussions here and elsewhere that the long-term balance of the economy is not a concern for most players who voiced their opinions -- and almost certainly not in the endgame.

Personally, I've always wished for a more realistic or at least balanced and functional economy in RPGs, but basically as long as it's not broken mechanically, it's fine. Other than that I thought this was a good update and I'm in favour of your decisions.

[Hormalakh]

so...apparently all the classes' combat skills are done up to level 5. Can we hear about the classes we have no info on, like the druid and ranger?

[DYWYPI]

Do people really hate having unique items in stores? Personally, when playing NWN or IWD or BG, one of the feelings I absolutely loved was happening upon a new shopkeeper loaded with a treasure-trove of expensive armor to fantasize about being able to afford. The existence of such stores also makes the commonly found Shortsword +2s and the like much more of a treat; they might be useless, but with a dozen of them piled up in my bag of holding, when I get back to town that's a pleasingly solid chunk of gold to set against the next suit of full plate with a cool or situational enchantment that I see.

[Bhazor]

 

However, it is clear from discussions here and elsewhere that the long-term balance of the economy is not a concern for most players who voiced their opinions -- and almost certainly not in the endgame.

Personally, I've always wished for a more realistic or at least balanced and functional economy in RPGs, but basically as long as it's not broken mechanically, it's fine. Other than that I thought this was a good update and I'm in favour of your decisions.

 

 

Funnily enough that feature is exactly what got me excited about Fable 2. But of course Molyneux was involved.

 

 

In this gif the attractive lady represents Peter Molyneux the way she's flirting represents the promise of a fully modelled reactive economic system underpinning an RPG  Joseph Gordon-Levitt represents the gaming press and the beer drinking represents all the beer I drunk after I actually played it.

Edited July 6, 2013 by Bhazor

[Lephys]

Based on discussions on the forums and conversations I had with people on the team, we will be doing the following:

 

* Removing durability as a mechanic on items.

* Removing the Crafting skill (specifically).  The crafting system and its associated mechanics will remain, as-is.

 

Ultimately, solving skill imbalance and endgame wealth abundance problems is not worth what players perceive as uninteresting and unenjoyable gameplay.  I can still solve the skill imbalance problems by removing the problem skill.  As for endgame wealth abundance, we will continue to create places for you to use wealth in the economy: unique items, the stronghold, optional quest/dialogue gates, etc.  Ultimately, if those options go unused, I'll have to trust that the majority of players won't be significantly troubled by an excess of wealth in the late game.

 

Thanks for all of your feedback.

 

To be honest, I has a mild sad now. Not at your decision (I understand it), but simply at the as-fate-would-have-it results of the removed elements.

 

But, as with others here, I just wanted to extend my gratitude and admiration of how well you guys deal with feedback tsunamis (and actually still voluntarily seek feedback in the midst of them), as well as how you utilize our feedback only in collaboration with all of your own expertise and testing.

 

Keep up the good work, and just know that OODLES of people really, truly appreciate every ounce of effort you put into this thing. It's just hard to express that as often as it is true without flooding the forums, heh.

 

 

I think you misuderstand "sink" to being something negative. It isn't. You just need sinks if you have wells of something, otherwise your world will overflow with it. Enemies for example are, among other things, damage sinks, but nobody looks at it that way because your damage well (i.e. your sword) is an infinite source. You just have to balance how much damage you can extract from the well at a time, not the sum.

 

I appreciate your response. I don't think I was entirely clear, but the bolded/italicized part of your quote, above, is kind of the point I was getting at. Many here were acting as though much of what's being discussed were merely money sinks, and nothing more. Or seemed to be, at least. I just wanted to point out that, if you're actually implementing something as purely a money sink, it probably has absolutely no business being implemented at all. For that reason even plenty of systems in plenty of games that heavily fill the role of economy-balancing moneysink still actually serve other purposes, even if they were a bit heavy-handed on the moneysinking role.

Edited July 6, 2013 by Lephys

[rjshae]

 

You're comparing apples and oranges. This is an entirely different game and my suggestion was for a universal implementation of item repair, not a one off.

I see the very idea of durability and equipment maintenance as inherently bad in Infinity-like RPG. No matter how cheap and abdurant "repair kit"-type items would be. In Fallout, they served as universal repair, if PE will feature, something like Hammer item from TES for universal item repair, then still it will be an additional way to annoy the player.

 

I find it funny the things that will "annoy" some players. It's a game: the whole point is to overcome obstacles. No matter.

[Lephys]

Oh... and I just want to re-iterate my feedback on the crafting system itself (since that's still there):

 

Make it different. Obviously not different for the sake of difference, but good different. You know, just something to make it feel like you're not just shopping at the same merchant, but using a different currency (materials/ingredients instead of gold/coins).

 

It's fine if I can often make something that I could buy, but it'd be SO amazingly fantastic if the crafting system actually felt like a whole different animal from the shopping system.

 

Maybe there'll be some stat tie-ins? Maybe (just as an example of a way in which to dynamicize the system) if you have Burly Bill at the anvil, and Agile Argus at the bellows/forgefire, you get different results (or even different results ranges) than if their spots are reversed, etc. Or, if you have THIS person in your party, you get access to different equipment modifications than if you have THIS person. *shrug*

 

I think something that lets the progression choices and inherent differences of your characters affect things would be lovely. Heck, even if stuff isn't really even made completely from scratch by your party, and is, instead, made by some resident blacksmith in your stronghold, or just any blacksmiths around, maybe each blacksmith could offer different modifications/results to the same piece of equipment. They could have sort of crafting stats/ratings. And, at least with potential stronghold crafting, we could actually affect who sets up shop/moves into the stronghold (and, therefore, what kind of specific crafting options we have).

 

Maybe one blacksmith can make anything up to steel material quality, but specializes in Elven constructions/styles, while another specializes in Dwarven. Even amongst that, one Dwarven specialist could possess greater skill (can work with "higher-tier" materials, etc, or knows a greater number of techniques/designs) than another Dwarven specialist, and some blacksmiths could specialize in multiple blacksmithing focii.

 

Dynamics! Dynamics dynamics dynamics!

 

Did I mention dynamics?

[Nonek]

Harumph!

[Fearabbit]

Well, I'm sad now. I hope you're all happy!!!

 

Seriously, this was a feature that was very important to me. I knew how easy it is to screw it up, but I believed that they could do it, because of everything else they have shown me so far. I can understand people who wanted something else, but in my case, I've grown up mostly with RPGs that had durability (Morrowind, Fallout, Arcanum... IE games came later). I've seen that at the end of the day, I didn't mind and in fact enjoyed the features for the little nuances they offered. For the "I'll stick with my good old warhammer because it's durable" and the "I'll let him keep a backup weapon just to be sure".

 

Project Eternity is bound to be a great RPG, but I really hope that not too many features will be scrapped in favor of more "tried and tested" designs that worked in a very specific way that people are now accustomed to, but that didn't actually work for people new to the system.

[Sacred_Path]

in b4 Josh accidentally the whole game

[Bhazor]

 For the "I'll stick with my good old warhammer because it's durable" and the "I'll let him keep a backup weapon just to be sure".

 

You mean you don't carry multiple weapons that deal different damage types?!? Christ, my DM would eat you alive. Heck in my P&P games I don't cross the street unless I have at least two different swords, a mace, two daggers, a cudgel, a silvered dagger, a short bow (with four different arrow types) and at least one cold iron weapon ready to hand. In RPGs different damage types are incredibly important and that is why you should hang on to multiple weapons not because you forgot to spend 5 minutes laboriously repairing dozens of different weapons and armours. All the examples you gave are single character RPGs, imagine the added busywork of Arcanum multiplied six fold.

 

I agree given the work already done that it should be kept as an optional "hardcore mode" feature but it definitely should not be mandatory.

 

 

 

 

 

I see the very idea of durability and equipment maintenance as inherently bad in Infinity-like RPG. No matter how cheap and abdurant "repair kit"-type items would be. In Fallout, they served as universal repair, if PE will feature, something like Hammer item from TES for universal item repair, then still it will be an additional way to annoy the player.

 

 

I find it funny the things that will "annoy" some players. It's a game: the whole point is to overcome obstacles. No matter.

 

 

By the same token you could claim that crashing to desktop is part of the game and you'd be a fool to complain about it. The whole point of games is for overcoming satisfying obstactles. Not irritating ones.

Edited July 6, 2013 by Bhazor

[ushas]

Thanks Tin Cain for the update!

 

As a Sad Panda and others mentioned, it's logical, that crafting takes some time (I guess from several game minutes eg. ~instant, up to days...). It's one of the resources we are investing in (skills, money, recipes, ingredients, contacts, time to reach resources and places and time to craft, etc.) and contributes to crafting as a tactical choice...

With this in mind, I can imagine if the NPC (or more NPCs when there is some collaborative recipes) is going to craft something more time consuming, the party can decide:
  (a) to wait during that game period (so from the player's perspective time is ~instant, or connect resting with cooking etc.);
  (b) or the party can left him (them) and do actively other stuff in the meantime and come back later...  --> so it actually means temporary party splitting in case the crafter is party NPC (well if the PC wants to craft and story is being told from his perspective, it can be tricky -- so maybe only wait and rest option in this case?)


On the other hand, It's understandable when you decide to make it game-time-instant for simplicity, eg. if you are inventing some time sensitive stories (quests if you must:)) and therefore you don't want to limit players even more by crafting times;

And again what about a difficulty settings? Eg. on easy almost all the crafting is instant even in game time (except some story driven artifacts and crafting events), and on hard it will actually take some game time, so the player in the end cannot craft everything ahead.


Some nice ideas:

 

How about instead of crafting you can find "recipes" that you then give to vendors who then start selling that item. Take your potion recipe to a magic vendor, take your armour "recipe" to a smithy. If theres no actual player input in crafting beyond picking what you want from a list then what are you losing?...

 

To more extend, the party actually shapes the world by selling "howknow" (generally, strategic information) to somebody...

 

at the very least please allow us to add a dye to color it.

Personalization by colors...

 

To make crafting cool, I think you should really consider each item, and make it's creation story-book unique. It can involve the need for the blood of a dragon, or it has to be made at midnight, during a thunderstorm. Or a demon summoning ritual, in which you actually arrange the candles (a'la Ultima 7/8) and if done incorrectly it could have some interesting consequences (an escaped demon storyline). a virtual amount of time has to pass ( ie the character spent a day in the ruined temple), and seeing related descriptive text can certainly add to that experience...

 

 

Generally I prefer crafting to be something along the lines of improving equipment but not to the level of ancient sorcerors and master blacksmiths of old. This is because they were specialists who could focus their time on the creation of impressive items. Where-as the would be adventurer is partaking of it part-time and you wouldn't logically expect them to be able to get as good as those who worked at it full-time. Basically it would seem silly.

 

 

PLEASE DON'T trivialize the existing items/lore by allowing the player's crafting efforts to improve upon or surpass the best items to be found in the game, esp. if these items have legendary origins. Having a generic adventurer improve an eldritch creation from the beginning of time by slapping some random enchantment of his choice on it just ruins the weight of its discovery and its role in the setting unless this is to restore the weapon to its former glory.

 

If there was a specific thing one had to do, a ritual sacrifice of souls or combination of crafting materials to awaken such a weapon to its full strength after aeons of neglect leaking out its power or forgetting its hunger in the corner of some crypt without a living soul about, that would be neat.

 

This are a few of many "crafting--story/lore connection" requests. Personally I support thinking among these lines, there should be limit what the party may craft easily -- a legendary and unique things should be crafted be unique specialists (and specialist teams, what about having whole scientific orders addicted to some craft?) and obtained by experiencing something special (quest for glory, sacrifice, rituals, legendary history, visiting unique places, nations-shape decision, famous owner...). Having crafting education (skills) among party members can add to the story by more understanding the techniques, decipher recipes, having contacts (getting hints who to consult and to ask for help with the craft), contribute as a assistants; and overally add possibilities how to to solve some issues (quests)...

 

Aside to story options, I think there is space for normal effective crafting/enhancement/alchemy/cooking by party members which may be creative and personalized but not overpowered, altogether with that special crafting as mentioned above (and as in IE games).

 

And in the end, I would like to ask to bear in mind that crafting is popular from the modding perspective. So it would be great if you at least try to make it as much easy as possible for modders to enhance and expand (or simplify) it, among the solid crafting basis in the game of course.

 

-u

[Tuco Benedicto]

 

By the same token you could claim that crashing to desktop is part of the game and you'd be a fool to complain about it. The whole point of games is for overcoming satisfying obstactles. Not irritating ones.

 

 

Bingo.

 

Beside, there were a lot of very faulty premises behind the whole concept.

 

For a start, the idea that having a single character  capable of using a crafting kill was "a problem to solve"  is senseless, when the whole point of party-based games is the subdivision of roles. "But in that way you will need just ONE blacksmith!". Yeah, so?

 

Second, durability can (eventually) work in a game with a single character, but there's virtually no scenario where it doesn't become an annoyance when you have to manage a whole party of fully equipped characters, and the only alternative to having it as an annoying process, is to automatize it a lot, which is going to make it even more pointless and not enjoyable. Just a purposeless money sink.

 

Third, a strictly balanced economy is not that crucial, but even going with the assumption that it is, a constant money sink would probably be the worst possible solution.

And frankly what's far more annoying than "having too much money" in these games is often constant inflation. How it is that you start a game in a world where 50 coins sound a lot and you end it considering thousands of coins like peanuts with items pricing around the hundreds of thousands? Incidentally, that's also a problem which isn't solved with durability.

 

Games like Gothic 2 or Risen, on the other hand, didn't have durability or repair and yet managed the economy far better than any Infinity Engine game ever had.

In Risen, for instance, you start a game considering 200 coins like a valuable sum, maybe even out of your reach at first, but completely achievable... And you end the game somewhat more rich but still considering those 200 coins a valuable sum (even if easier to gather in the end game).

It's more about how you balance loot, rewards and prices than about putting an arbitrary money sink just for the sake of it.

Edited July 6, 2013 by Tuco Benedicto

[Lephys]

For a start, the idea that having a single character  capable of using a crafting kill was "a problem to solve"  is senseless, when the whole point of party-based games is the subdivision of roles. "But in that way you will need just ONE blacksmith!". Yeah, so?

Complete misunderstanding. The problem wasn't that you didn't need multiple crafters... it was that multiple crafters did absolutely nothing for anyone. Zilch. It was entirely redundant. While all the other skills that draw from the same pool of points were non-redundant (having 2 people who can sneak is different from having one person who can sneak, etc.) Josh broke all that down, and is in no way claiming any kind of problem in the sense that you described it.

 

Really, just... read stuff before you go trying to shred it. An argument against what wasn't even said/claimed is about the least constructive thing, ever. The rest of your post: totally constructive.

[rjshae]

 

 

 

I see the very idea of durability and equipment maintenance as inherently bad in Infinity-like RPG. No matter how cheap and abdurant "repair kit"-type items would be. In Fallout, they served as universal repair, if PE will feature, something like Hammer item from TES for universal item repair, then still it will be an additional way to annoy the player.

 

I find it funny the things that will "annoy" some players. It's a game: the whole point is to overcome obstacles. No matter.

 

By the same token you could claim that crashing to desktop is part of the game and you'd be a fool to complain about it. The whole point of games is for overcoming satisfying obstactles. Not irritating ones.

 

This proves nothing. Obviously if you take away all aspects of a game then it won't be enjoyable for anybody.

 

The game is a simulation of an alternate reality. You'd have it remove all aspects of the reality that you find irritating, such as poison, disease, petrification, or dying. So be it. But that approach to gaming isn't for everybody. Those so-called irritating elements are what give the setting atmosphere, add to the challenge, and bring the setting to life.

 

I think the main effect of a more severe durability mechanic was that it would cause the front-line characters to carry extra weapons. When one wears out you switch to the other. But the implementation wasn't very impactful. Weapon switching will perhaps happen anyway because of the armor system.

Edited July 6, 2013 by rjshae

[Sensuki]

so...apparently all the classes' combat skills are done up to level 5. Can we hear about the classes we have no info on, like the druid and ranger?

 

Sure you can, in a future update!

 

We have had some info on the Druid recent-ish.

Edited July 6, 2013 by Sensuki

[Gyges]

Honestly, when has item durability ever been implemented in a contextual and smart way? It always just seems to be the token money sink in any given rpg. I was coming to this thread to complain about what i thought was apathy towards the end-game wealth excess issue, but apparently its covered.

[Shadenuat]

Avellone's dress mawed by wolves just recently is only argument I need. Things like durability or, say, "heavy" critical hits and failures are mechanics that can bring immense joy and frustration both, but I'm alright with that, I like all these unique situations in games.