Update #63: Stronghold!

[Gfted1]

How can the stronghold be called "optional" if you have serious disadvantages when you decide not to use it.

From all that I have read, there are major advantages using the stronghold.

 

What do players get in return who decide to not use it?

 

Please do not get me wrong I LOVE strongholds, but I worry for people who don't.

They should not have a major less enjoyable experience of Project Eternity in my opinion.

 

I understand that you cannot design an equally sophisticated game element for those who refuse the stronghold.

But maybe you should not give them *nothing*.

 

If someone refuses the stronghold this should impact the game too and I'd ask that this

would not be only restiricted to a negative impact.

According to the below posts, the stronghold is not critical:

 

 

Gaining access to the stronghold occurs on the critical path, but unlike NWN2, the stronghold is not an integral part of continuing the critical path. If you ignore the stronghold entirely, at worst you miss out on potential bonuses. It still becomes the common rally point for companions.

Yes, players who refuse to play the stronghold's game elements will not receive the strategic advantages they provide. We're not going to completely divorce the stronghold from having overlap with the core gameplay.

As an aside, the SA Games forum is public at the moment, so the source of these is here. Hit the ¿ by each post to skip to it's place in the full thread.

 

[Jarmo]

 

I understand that you cannot design an equally sophisticated game element for those who refuse the stronghold.

But maybe you should not give them *nothing*.

 

 

Maybe if you considered the stronghold a bunch of optional side-quests?

It's pretty much assumed you get some reward from side quests, but no reward for not doing them...

 

But then, not spending cash on a stronghold means spending cash on something else, so it's not a total loss.

[C2B]

If someone refuses the stronghold this should impact the game too and I'd ask that this

would not be only restiricted to a negative impact.

Eh, I think there's a better chance than not they did think about this already. After all, this is a major location that can be used later on.

[Valorian]

 

Or a stronghold that is a money machine.

 

Stronghold tax income is more for balancing maintenance costs (i.e., paying hirelings and repairing damaged upgrades) than a major source of income.  Your major source of income will almost certainly be finding money and loot in the world.

 

It doesn't need to be a major source at all. It becomes a problem if it's an endless source.

[C2B]

It doesn't need to be a major source at all. It becomes a problem if it's an endless source.

Depending on the flow of tax income, not really.

Edited September 5, 2013 by C2B

[C2B]

[Valorian]

 

It doesn't need to be a major source at all. It becomes a problem if it's an endless source.

Depending on the flow of tax income, not really.

 

 You understand what endless means, right?

 

It means you can buy all the powerful magical items and potions you want (broken economy affects combat in a negative way, yes) by simply resting, while a small/moderate tax is being collected so that peasants remain happy.

[J.E. Sawyer]

It doesn't need to be a major source at all. It becomes a problem if it's an endless source.

 

It isn't an endless source.

[C2B]

 

 

It doesn't need to be a major source at all. It becomes a problem if it's an endless source.

Depending on the flow of tax income, not really.

 

 You understand what endless means, right?

 

It means you can buy all the powerful magical items and potions you want (broken economy affects combat in a negative way, yes) by simply resting, while a small/moderate tax is being collected so that peasants remain happy.

 

 

Ok, don't think it will be, though.

 

Edit: Sawyer reply.

Edited September 5, 2013 by C2B

[Fluffle]

That is not what I meant with optional.

 

I know that it is optional in the meaning that you do not have to use it in order to beat the game.

 

I rather worry if it's optional in the meaning of having almost the same enjoyable game experience, i.e.

will two people, one of which hates the stronghold and doesn't use it and the other one likes it and uses it

almost have an equally enjoyable game experience?

 

My worry is that the option of NOT choosing to use the stronghold maybe so much less attractive that it is no real option, i.e.

in the end you have to use it for either more enjoyable game experience, or if you want to train your characters well, more quests, etc

 

Once again, I do not ask for the same amount of opportunity the stronghold offers you for players who refuse it.

I'd just request that they do not get *nothing at all*

 

There should be a little *something* exclusively for those who refuse it.

[Valorian]

 

It doesn't need to be a major source at all. It becomes a problem if it's an endless source.

 

It isn't an endless source.

 

Good. Because in your other games with keeps/strategical resources, it was endless.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Good. Because in your other games with keeps/strategical resources, it was endless.

 

I didn't design the stronghold resources/systems in any of the previous games I've worked on.  If a system gives out a resource periodically, it should either expire after a number of periods have elapsed or the periods should stop elapsing.

[agris]

Hey Mr. Sawyer,

 

Fallout 2 had a great 'slaver' subgame. The world reacted to you (or really, that face tattoo) if you were a slaver, and it was an unique experience to play the game that way. Will the player be able to take part in the slave trade in PE, and will it be connected to the Stronghold at all? Both gameplay elements would, to my thinking, dovetail nicely (at least the underground prison part, and maybe even a slave rebellion event...).

[Valorian]

 

Good. Because in your other games with keeps/strategical resources, it was endless.

 

I didn't design the stronghold resources/systems in any of the previous games I've worked on.  If a system gives out a resource periodically, it should either expire after a number of periods have elapsed or the periods should stop elapsing.

 

Excellent, I'll play the keep game then.

 

 

Overload of new informations. I feel a little bit crazy right now and I didn't even read about the special things that can happen with your keep, I want suhprays!

[Lephys]

You understand what endless means, right?

 

It means you can buy all the powerful magical items and potions you want (broken economy affects combat in a negative way, yes) by simply resting, while a small/moderate tax is being collected so that peasants remain happy.

Yet another reason I like the sort of paced "world time progresses when you do" handling of time. Well, it could also be handled by "serious/crazy stuff happens whether you like it or not, after so much time passes," but I prefer the former, personally. But, if you can only collect taxes between major quests, etc. (or anything that's understood to, in the narrative have taken some certain amount of time to tackle), then there's no endless problem, as you've pointed out. Plus, it makes sure you can't just sleep for 5 weeks and fully upgrade the stronghold in Act 1, then play the rest of the game with mysteriously no more tax income, or anything like that.

 

It helps pace, AND prevents endlessness.

 

Basically, if you run around in the woods, camping, for 3 weeks, I don't mind the game simply putting a hold on time until you actually accomplish something in relation to the narrative, in lieu of the narrative saying "And then our adventurers spent 3 pointless weeks in the woods, camping." BUT, actual urgency would work, as I said. It's just going to lead to a lot of reloads when you "don't find the water chip in time." Because, at a certain point, taking too much time and the continuation of the narrative are going to conflict.

 

Depending on the flow of tax income, not really.

As Valorian said, it's being infinite would really be the only major problem. Obviously it also can't yield 700,000 gold in the first week's collection, when you only need 500,000 to buy every upgrade for it in the entire game. But, I think it's a given that they're going to employ SOME sense and balance in determining the amounts, so that it doesn't functionally amount to an endless supply of income.

 

Also, don't forget that the money you get out of it is going to go into upgrading it to improve its income generating capabilities.

 

Think of managing it more like an investment. The amount you get out of it is somewhat proportionate to the amount you put into it. The further along you get, the more profit you're going to get on top of your initial investment, but as long as it never just gives you infinite profit, you just wind up with a decent bit of extra gold, in the long run, versus all the gold you could've had if you hadn't invested it all just to get the profit returns.

 

As Josh said on the previous page, it's not intended to comprise a considerable amount of the income you'll need for all things of monetary value in the game. So, I'm not too worried about it being problematic, based on that.

 

People just seem to be acting as though we'll have a stronghold button, that, if you sit around clicking, will result in nothing but extra money, and if you don't sit around clicking it, you get nothing. It's gonna be more like "Hey, have 10,000 gold to build up a nice marketplace... meanwhile I'm going to go off and do things, minus 10,000 gold that I could've really used on other things." Then, maybe days or a week later, you'll return to a stronghold with a Marketplace that is now actually allowing artisans to sell their wares, and other folks to buy them, and visitors to have a reason to visit. Now, you don't magically get 10,000 gold back, plus interest. You just get to generate revenue off of the business from the marketplace. First, you're just getting your 10,000 back. And only if you never improve anything else there are you going to simply keep that 10,000 and simply collect extra.

[Nonek]

Do we really want every consequence and option to be equal, doesn't that kind of invalidate the point of them? For instance I wouldn't want Ceasar's Legion to be liked and well thought of in a disputed borderland like the Mojave of New Vegas, it just wouldn't make sense for people living with the threat of torture, murder and enslavement to think well of the agents of such. 

 

Furthermore I assume we'll have various bonuses from maintaining and investing in a stronghold, however from what the update says we'll also have penalties such as being an obvious target, having to invest time, money and effort into upkeep and withstanding assaults. Making this all optional is to me a capital idea, for those playthroughs where I wish to maintain a low profile, not bother with so many systems and micromanagement and my character has no desire to rule. In these cases the player house seems like a viable alternative that will likely go unnoticed by my enemies, when hidden among the hustle and bustle of Defiance Bay.

[Fluffle]

I don't think all options and consequences should be equal.

 

I just think that a player should not feel that he has the "choice" between what he may perceive as everything and nothing.

 

I will reiterate.

 

I do not want a replacement of equal scale for a stronghold for those who reject it.

That's not what I asked for.

 

I only asked for that the choice is not between stronghold vs *nothing*

Edited September 5, 2013 by Fluffle

[Tamerlane]

Um.

 

Why, exactly?

 

I mean, I get nothing for not playing Pazaak in Knights of the Old Republic. Or for not doing the arena in Oblivion. Or for skipping the Modron Cube in PST, cool as Nordom is. I pass on those things because I don't enjoy them, and for me, the reward was "Didn't do **** I don't enjoy." Why should the stronghold be different?

Edited September 5, 2013 by Tamerlane

[Lephys]

Seems to me like the problem comes not from common things like money (that you can get elsewhere), but the specific things like "certain items and components" that we'll get from the stronghold, even if comparable but not identical things can be acquired through other means. Something being at all unique AND exclusive to a choice makes it feel, to some, like it's a necessity, simply because it's not directly replaceable. But, really, at that point, you've got "I shouldn't have to participate specifically in all this stronghold effort to get to this particular reward, since I put value in collecting all the rewards."

 

But, this could really be said of LOTS of things throughout the game. Heck... there could even be specific items you can't even get without having certain skill/stat values, or having chosen a certain class, or background, etc.

 

I think people mainly don't like the idea of specific rewards that they'd want being paired with specific efforts that they don't want to go through. Maybe.

[Giantevilhead]

Why would you want a house when the halls of your keep will echo with the anguished cries of your enemies as your dungeon master weave symphonies from their screams?

[Rozkurwiciel]

Well, you can keep dungeon deep enough to not let that happen ^^

[Lephys]

Why would you want a house when the halls of your keep will echo with the anguished cries of your enemies as your dungeon master weave symphonies from their screams?

Everyone needs a quiet corner in which to sip steaming chamomille tea and read about new and improved torture and dungeoneering techniques.

[SummerDay]

 

Why would you want a house when the halls of your keep will echo with the anguished cries of your enemies as your dungeon master weave symphonies from their screams?

Everyone needs a quiet corner in which to sip steaming chamomille tea and read about new and improved torture and dungeoneering techniques.

 

Interesting update...but, I'd rather just have a house.

[Giantevilhead]

 

Why would you want a house when the halls of your keep will echo with the anguished cries of your enemies as your dungeon master weave symphonies from their screams?

Everyone needs a quiet corner in which to sip steaming chamomille tea and read about new and improved torture and dungeoneering techniques.

 

 

Nonsense. Nothing sparks the imagination more than seeing your former foes battered and broken before you as they sing praises to glorify your greatness as recompense for their folly of opposing your will.

[Stun]

I know this has already been addressed by a dev, but my gut is urging me to put my two cents in because this question is absurd, and there are about 30 different valid answers to it:

 

How can the stronghold be called "optional" if you have serious disadvantages when you decide not to use it.

From all that I have read, there are major advantages using the stronghold.

So? what you're describing is the nature of sidequests in Decent RPGs.

 

Watcher's keep is an optional part of BG2's Throne of bhaal (don't need it to beat the game), but if you skip it you'll miss out on:

 

1) About a MILLION exp for each party member;

2) About 1/3 of the expansion pack's artifacts;

3) A half dozen stat boosts (Machine of Lum the Mad)

4) An immeasurable amount of loot, gold, fun, story and unique battles

 

I wouldn't have it any other way. Would you? Would you rather that the stronghold offer nothing significantly advantageous to those who take the time and effort to do it? There's a word that describes such game features: POINTLESS. And history shows that if you offer players large quantities of POINTLESS content, they will skip it.

 

Personally, even as I sit here and listen to the developers remind me that this stronghold is optional, My mind is already made up: It is mandatory for ME. I'll be doing it as a rule, optional or not. Hopefully, my hunger for "choices and options" will be slaked *within* the stronghold system.

 

Edit: and there probably IS some advantage to not doing the stronghold. You'll likely have a lot of money hoarded to spend on something other than keep upgrades. lol

Edited September 6, 2013 by Stun