Josh Sawyer reveals some information about Project Eternity's attribute scores

[Prometheus]

New information about the attributes, some attributes affect one of the four defenses, but no attribute affect multiple defenses. (source)
 

No Attribute affects multiple defenses. Deflection (used to block direct melee and ranged attacks) and Reflexes (used to dodge unblockable attacks, typically AoEs) are affected by different Attributes.

Edited October 4, 2013 by Prometheus

[JFSOCC]

oh great, the something awful forums are closed again.

[Gorgon]

Patt(sp?) is when you leave the opponents king no avenue to travel without moving into a checkmate outcome and the only piece you can move is your king. The others are boxed in or lost. It counts as a win. Stalemate doesn't obviously. 

[kgambit]

Patt(sp?) is when you leave the opponents king no avenue to travel without moving into a checkmate outcome and the only piece you can move is your king. The others are boxed in or lost. It counts as a win. Stalemate doesn't obviously. 

 

 

If the king is the only piece that can move, and it has no safe avenue of escape (ie it has no legal move), then only two situations exist:  (1) the king is not currently in check it is a stalemate and is considered a draw, not a win; or (2)  the king is under check (and no safe avenue of escape exists) in which case it is checkmate.  If all the other pieces taken or locked with no possible move, there are no other variations possible (assuming it is the king's turn to move).   

 

I have no clue where the term Patt comes from - I couldn't find it any chess glossary. 

[Gorgon]

Maybe it's a draw. The King can't move except into a checked position but it isn't checked itself. That's what I think patt is anyway. 

[JFSOCC]

 

Patt(sp?) is when you leave the opponents king no avenue to travel without moving into a checkmate outcome and the only piece you can move is your king. The others are boxed in or lost. It counts as a win. Stalemate doesn't obviously.

 

 

If the king is the only piece that can move, and it has no safe avenue of escape (ie it has no legal move), then only two situations exist:  (1) the king is not currently in check it is a stalemate and is considered a draw, not a win; or (2)  the king is under check (and no safe avenue of escape exists) in which case it is checkmate.  If all the other pieces taken or locked with no possible move, there are no other variations possible (assuming it is the king's turn to move).   

 

I have no clue where the term Patt comes from - I couldn't find it any chess glossary.

 

pat is a stalemate, and in tournament play that's considered to be more than a draw, less than win, and is scored accordingly

[Oner]

BTW. I'd love to see a system where magic power is detached from wisdom or whatever magic skill.

Meaning you could have a simple stupid mage who can't cast high complexity spells, but can cast the simple spells with tremendous power.

Or a highly trained wizard with maybe low magic aptitude, who could still compensate by weaving more elaborate magics.

 

I know one. ^_^

A wizard can have a crapton of mana and zero training, or a lot of training and not much mana. Though after a certain level, the mana bonus you get from your magical training helps overtake the untrained mind. Unless you keep spending skill points on branching out your skillset.

[jethro]

"Patt" is the german word for stalemate.

[kgambit]

 

 

Patt(sp?) is when you leave the opponents king no avenue to travel without moving into a checkmate outcome and the only piece you can move is your king. The others are boxed in or lost. It counts as a win. Stalemate doesn't obviously.

 

 

If the king is the only piece that can move, and it has no safe avenue of escape (ie it has no legal move), then only two situations exist:  (1) the king is not currently in check it is a stalemate and is considered a draw, not a win; or (2)  the king is under check (and no safe avenue of escape exists) in which case it is checkmate.  If all the other pieces taken or locked with no possible move, there are no other variations possible (assuming it is the king's turn to move).   

 

I have no clue where the term Patt comes from - I couldn't find it any chess glossary.

 

pat is a stalemate, and in tournament play that's considered to be more than a draw, less than win, and is scored accordingly

 

 

Do you have a link?  I'm not doubting you but I've never heard of any international scoring system that differentiated scoring between types of draws.  Ever.      I would like to see where it's been used.    

 

Laws of Chess of the World Chess Federation (FIDE) recognizes five known situations for draws and score all draws equally (rule 11.1).    

 

The only non-standard scoring systems (besides the traditional 1/0.5/0 and the Bilbao 3/1/0)  that I am aware of is the Ballard anti-draw points system (BAPS) which scores as follows:

 

• Black Wins: 3 Points
• White Wins: 2 Points
• Draws: 1 point for Black, 0 points for White
• Losses: 0 Points

BAPS wasn't used extensively.

 

Thanks for the info on the origin of the word. 

 

PS.  If you want to follow up on this in a pm that's fine.  We're getting way outside the thread topic.

Edited October 6, 2013 by kgambit

[PrimeJunta]

The Wikipedia article on stalemate was pretty fascinating. According to it, stalemate was standardized as a draw in the early 19th century; before that, the rulings were all over the place.

[Lephys]

You know, you've got to admire this forum populous. The declaration of a debate stalemate merely results in the shift to an informative discussion about stalemates, especially in relation to the specific chess term that was used to declare it. ^_^

[Sabotin]

I think there's still room for more discussion .

 

 

 

No Attribute affects multiple defenses. Deflection (used to block direct melee and ranged attacks) and Reflexes (used to dodge unblockable attacks, typically AoEs) are affected by different Attributes.

(from RPG Codex, but originally SA forums I think)

 

This is really going in a non-standard direction. In D&D I think that the stats are the "realistic" base, with more abstract functions then derived from them, but in PE it's the other way around apparently.

[jamoecw]

I think there's still room for more discussion .

 

 

 

No Attribute affects multiple defenses. Deflection (used to block direct melee and ranged attacks) and Reflexes (used to dodge unblockable attacks, typically AoEs) are affected by different Attributes.

(from RPG Codex, but originally SA forums I think)

 

This is really going in a non-standard direction. In D&D I think that the stats are the "realistic" base, with more abstract functions then derived from them, but in PE it's the other way around apparently.

deflection is about shifting the angle of your body in response to an attack, dodging AoE is about being mobile.  in hollywood people outright dodge arrows and such, but in real life you don't have the time, you flinch in a way to cause a direct blow become a glancing blow while tightening the surface so as to mitigate catching of skin and such and tearing a big chunk.  being mobile is about being loose and quickly moving away from danger, which means having a less solid foundation to your stance.  the difference between the two is largely psychological, one is about flinching but standing your ground, the other is about not standing your ground but not flinching.

 

they are in fact two separate things that most people lump into one thing because either they have been fooled by hollywood or they don't think about it too hard.  after all you don't deflect the effects from a grenade, and fencers that leap about to dodge aren't actually deflecting blows (they're dodging them).

 

they pulled apart the components to DnD and put them back together so as to ensure that every stat is relevant to every class (no dump stats), there is a justification other than gamey balance to the ones i've seen thus far (at the very least as much as DnD), as such it is at least as realistic as DnD in its specifics, and more realistic in overall design (does real life have dump stats?).

[Vernum]

I am not sure what that dump stat term is but I dont think that system is any more realistic than what we had in older games.

In real life a guy who aims better than most with a rifle isnt necessaraly a strong person able to throw an iron ball super far as well. You can be the most dexterous guy in the world, that wont help you at all when you try to lift super heavy weight if you dont have the strength.

So if by dump stat you mean attribute that would be useless in real life for a particular activity then yes there are dump stat in real life.

[jamoecw]

I am not sure what that dump stat term is but I dont think that system is any more realistic than what we had in older games.

In real life a guy who aims better than most with a rifle isnt necessaraly a strong person able to throw an iron ball super far as well. You can be the most dexterous guy in the world, that wont help you at all when you try to lift super heavy weight if you dont have the strength.

So if by dump stat you mean attribute that would be useless in real life for a particular activity then yes there are dump stat in real life.

dump stat is an attribute that you don't need.  like in DnD a wizard cleric doesn't need intelligence, and thus can take the minimum and it won't have any real noticeable detrimental effects, and the points saved can be put to better use, thus one can drop intelligence to its minimum and raise wisdom to its max and say constitution and end up with a potent cleric, while keeping intelligence at normal and only having above average constitution with high wisdom yields a cleric inferior to the low intelligence one.

 

http://rpggeek.com/wiki/page/RPG_Glossary#D

[Tsuga C]

dump stat is an attribute that you don't need.

A good DM/GM ensures that all aspects of a character are brought into play during the campaign, so those electing to min/max to the point of having preposterously low scores pay a heavy penalty.

[jamoecw]

 

dump stat is an attribute that you don't need.

A good DM/GM ensures that all aspects of a character are brought into play during the campaign, so those electing to min/max to the point of having preposterously low scores pay a heavy penalty.

 

i have never seen a fighter need decent intelligence, as it is an ability which influences skill points and arcane spell casting and little else it is an obvious dump stat that is hard for a DM to force the entire party to have decent scores, instead of letting the wizard step up for the party.  charisma is pretty useless for a simple dungeon crawl for most classes, and wisdom is only needed for most classes for its will save, which can be augmented in other ways.  physical traits are harder to make into dump stats, which penalizes the non warrior classes more which is a trend i tend to see in DMs trying to eliminate dump stats, of course they also tend to curb magic a bit since if you do stack various abilities and effects you can get very OP spells and thus nerfing them to keep this from happening requires one to think more along min max lines to be useful in a party, along with more emphasis on physical traits makes mages less useful in most cases.  of course the flip side is mages/clerics so powerful the fighters just sit back and does nothing.

[neo6874]

 

I am not sure what that dump stat term is but I dont think that system is any more realistic than what we had in older games.

In real life a guy who aims better than most with a rifle isnt necessaraly a strong person able to throw an iron ball super far as well. You can be the most dexterous guy in the world, that wont help you at all when you try to lift super heavy weight if you dont have the strength.

So if by dump stat you mean attribute that would be useless in real life for a particular activity then yes there are dump stat in real life.

dump stat is an attribute that you don't need.  like in DnD a wizard cleric doesn't need intelligence, and thus can take the minimum and it won't have any real noticeable detrimental effects, and the points saved can be put to better use, thus one can drop intelligence to its minimum and raise wisdom to its max and say constitution and end up with a potent cleric, while keeping intelligence at normal and only having above average constitution with high wisdom yields a cleric inferior to the low intelligence one.

 

http://rpggeek.com/wiki/page/RPG_Glossary#D

 

 

A Wizard/Cleric would need high Intelligence (also Charisma for 'turn undead' and Wisdom for the regular cleric spells).

[Haribol22]

The fact that the attributes will be consistent in what they do should allow them to design a better system by make it easier for them to measure the impact of the attribute system.  Resulting in more difficult and thus more interesting choices when assigning attributes .

[SymbolicFrank]

I am watching an interesting Fallout Let's Play. The uploader (mynameisnotlilly) plays "a female, diplomatic mage converted to a technical setting":

 

"We need intelligence and charisma, some perception and agility, strength is a dump stat, luck probably as well. The stats translate probably to the Speech, Barter and Science skill. And I found these two really interesting traits: Bloody Mess and Jinxed. Sounds fun!"

 

Well, it's fallout, the typical game in which there are no dump stats. So that, indeed, sounds like fun. Speech and Barter will get you far, and Science has some nice perks. Low Strength and Luck (3), combined with Jinxed means that the few guns you can use are probably more lethal to yourself than to your enemies, but you can be pacifist for the most part.

 

So, what does he do: he is totally not diplomatic whatsoever, makes many NPC's angry, and so ends up trying and/or having to shoot everyone. He uses more guns than clips, as they tend to explode. In Shady Sands and Junktown they all hate Lilly's guts. And the skill he uses most of the time (Small guns) is rarely raised at levelup. Instead, Speech, Barter and Science are raised almost exclusively. Of which only Barter is actually used.

 

Still, he does manage to win the game.

 

 

This raises the question: does the game have to cater for any choice and play style? Should there be no strategic choices that actually matter? Should you be able to win if you take the least effective choices all the time?

 

Ok, you  end up reloading a lot, but it is doable in Fallout.

 

 

So, on the one hand, it's terrific that there are no dump stats. But on the other hand, you aren't rewarded all that much by making the smart choices, either. Because the difference isn't all that significant.

 

 

It's like people who want to play chess, and end up using the rules for checkers, because "that's easier, and what does it matter which rules you use?"

 

So, you can either randomize the statistics, or remove them. It doesn't matter if the difference between "best" and "worst" is marginal.

 

 

EDIT: it would matter if it enabled different playing styles, but instead it seems that the difference between classes and playing styles gets reduced all the time.

 

EDIT2: Actually, it's a lot like Chris Avellone's Arcanum Let's Play, now I think about it.

Edited December 2, 2013 by SymbolicFrank

[Ulquiorra]

Owww ... So there are gonna be atributes like in Bleach anime ?

 

YaY !, Now let's add Arrancar race and Ulquiorra can live in PE worl YEY !!!!

[jethro]

Ok, you  end up reloading a lot, but it is doable in Fallout.

 

If that is true, then what is the problem? He obviously dies again and again. Reload-until-you-succeed is possible in most games and I say "Have fun" to anyone who does it that way. But it concerns me as much as a guy trying out scenes of the TV show Jackass. If you want to play Fallout as a story and have the impression you succeeded you better make logical choices.

[Lephys]

It's like people who want to play chess, and end up using the rules for checkers, because "that's easier, and what does it matter which rules you use?"

 

To cite this example in order to answer your question... if you build a game like chess, then just play it like checkers, then I wouldn't call it WRONG. I'd just call it a waste of a variety of distinctively-shaped game pieces (no point in checkers' rules), as well as of a perfectly good ruleset.

 

In other words, people will do what they please with what they're given, but it's not the game's job to ensure that its resources get to go ignored in its use.

[CaptainMace]

This raises the question: does the game have to cater for any choice and play style? Should there be no strategic choices that actually matter? Should you be able to win if you take the least effective choices all the time?

 

It's simple, we kill the batman we get rid of the notion of "least effective choices".

I think that's basically the kind of things they want to avoid with the system they announced concerning skills/perks/whatever (some combat talents and some non-combat talents which do not use the same ressource, if I remember correctly, might be totally wrong though).

[Lephys]

It's simple, we kill the batman we get rid of the notion of "least effective choices".

I think that's basically the kind of things they want to avoid with the system they announced concerning skills/perks/whatever (some combat talents and some non-combat talents which do not use the same ressource, if I remember correctly, might be totally wrong though).

Pre-xactly! Ex-cisely!

 

The choice for foods, for example, shouldn't be between 5 apples or 5 rocks. Apples actually provide you with nourishment. Rocks... blatantly do nothing for your nourishment. But, then it also shouldn't be between 50 apples and 3 oranges. Now, maybe it's not EXACTLY the same number of both fruits, but, even 50 apples versus 50 oranges is going to provide you with two different outcomes, despite the exactly identical quantities. Oranges are oranges, and apples are apples. Do you want the flavor and vitamins of the apples? Or the flavor and vitamins of the oranges?

 

Obviously, there are always going to be variances in effectiveness. But, the only idea is to get rid of any apples-vs-rocks type choices, and any BLATANT 50 apples versus 3 oranges type choices. Not to get rid of all choice effectiveness variance whatsoever. That's pretty much the only argument people come back with, is "Oh, so everything should be EXACTLY THE SAME?!". And no, it shouldn't. But there's a lot of other things something can be besides "identical" or "blatantly inferior."

Edited December 5, 2013 by Lephys