Update #63: Stronghold!

[Nishimoto]

Good take on the stronghold concept guys. What I like most about it is how you can send your idle companions to do missions similar to Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker. The prsion concept sounds fun too, I can't wait to vist the prsion for "more experiments"

 

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I'm a completionist and will be doing the stronghold. But also I'm sure there will be 'Solo game and No Stronghold' Challenge threads.

[Lephys]

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.

Indeed. A very good example is collectible things in an open-city game (GTA, Assassin's Creed, etc.). "Collect all 100 of these thingies hidden throughout, and get... A SPIFFY IN-GAME BADGE THAT SAYS YOU COLLECTED THEM! YAY!" is pointless. That basically says "If you happen to like collecting things for collecting things's sake, then this will yield value to YOU, while no one else will have any problem ignoring it." Whereas, when you have something like "collect the 10 pieces to this map," and that map actually leads to something useful (some kind of upgrade or accessory, etc.), then you're "missing out" if you don't do that. But that just makes it significant.

 

I only mention that because in a lot of those types of games, for a while now, the designers have been putting in all this "side content" that pretty much has no impact on the game, but doesn't indicate as much until you do it all (being the curious explorer that you might be), then find out you don't actually get anything useful or beneficial in any way. And, recently, it seems like they've been discovering that optional-yet-significant content, that actually has an impact on the non-optional gameplay, is much more fulfulling and is no longer pointless.

 

It's kind of funny. Game says "Hey, you can do this if you want."

 

Certain players say "Nah, that just sounds lame and I don't want to do it."

 

Game says "Hmm... well, if you do it, you'll get this nifty thing."

 

Suddenly, players say "OMG! How DARE you give the people who do that a nifty thing, when I don't want to do that, but I WANT a nifty thing! You should give those people something no one else would want, just so we don't feel left out, u_u!"

[GrinningReaper659]

 

 

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.

 

Well, we're not really sure, but I'd guess that the money earned from the stronghold will end up matching or exceeding the money spent on it.

 

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.

Your examples aren't really relevant to the issue here. I don't have a problem with player choices blocking off certain content when it makes sense, but you are talking about potential logical inconsistencies that would be caused by having choices with no effect, when in reality it would be more logical to have alternatives to the possibilities presented by the stronghold (taking prisoners doesn't require you to own a stronghold, having the option to encounter rare merchants shouldn't logically require this either).

 

As for the supposed penalties of owning a stronghold, being an obvious target = xp from encounters, money to upkeep is (I imagine) negated or exceeded by taxes, money from ransoming prisoners, rare items available to only those with strongholds, stat bonuses, etc. These penalties of yours don't really seem like penalties to me.

 

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?

Well, when discussing a game that you overall want to play which is in development, it's natural to point out the parts that you probably won't enjoy. The stronghold certainly won't stop me playing this game, but it may take away from my enjoyment a bit that resources were poured into creating cool rpg mechanics (taking prisoners and negotiating their release, etc.) and then those mechanics were made available only to those that choose to run a stronghold throughout the game.

 

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.

Just to be completely clear, I don't mind content/items/etc. being blocked off based on player choices, but based on my above arguments I simply don't like it in this context. Content and items are being developed which would make sense to be applied to the game at large, but are then being restricted to being available only to those with strongholds (as far as I can tell).

 

Anyway, like I said, this certainly won't disrupt my playing of the game much, I'll most likely run the stronghold every playthrough because I like a lot of the ideas that are being tied to it. It should only turn out to be a minor inconvenience, but I thought I'd mention it.

[Messier-31]

D3 has made me accustomed to picking up everything yellow and above (hey, I need the gold yo)

(...)

Also, I hope we can pick up gold just by running over/near it.

 

This is how I see this issue. Eternity is not hack'n'slash, mate. The defeated foes, opened containers etc. will not throw up with whatever gold or gems or other treasures they have stored. Gold will not be laying around on the ground like sand on the beach. You want to loot something, then you just gotta do it the cklick-on-it-and-check-what-is-inside way. As a character, you will decide if you take all the content, or just pick some that you like and leave the unwanted trash. This is how it worked in all the games that devs are taking inspiration from (BG, IwD, P:T). So, even if there is a pile of gold on the floor left for a reason, it will not magically appear in your bag because of your immense force of magnetism or gravity or some other mojo. (note to self: magnetism spell, that would be interesting)

 

Am I right, or am I right?

[Jarmo]

 

 

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

 

Well, we're not really sure, but I'd guess that the money earned from the stronghold will end up matching or exceeding the money spent on it.

 

 

We don't know, but I'd guess the stronghold wont produce as much income (in pure gold) as to be profitable in games duration.

Factoring in the training benefits and adventure opportunities, the adventurer might yet come ahead.

 

If it were the case of you get more xp, more gold, more everything, it'd be a complete no-brainer.

I'd assume there to be very expensive upgrade options that'll near bankrupt you, money for prestige, no hope to recoup the losses.

[Stun]

Just to be completely clear, I don't mind content/items/etc. being blocked off based on player choices, but based on my above arguments I simply don't like it in this context. Content and items are being developed which would make sense to be applied to the game at large, but are then being restricted to being available only to those with strongholds (as far as I can tell).

What do you mean by "game at large"? Due to the nature of the myriad of stretch goals that were met in order to give us the game we're getting, your argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Project eternity is a game made up of a bunch of pieces*. The Stronghold IS a part of the "game at large".

 

*For example, The mega dungeon will be optional. The stronghold is optional. The named companions are optional. The adventurers' hall is optional. Crafting is optional. Hell even combat will be optional.

 

So what's your suggested alternative to these mechanics, items and mini-quests being exclusively tied to these optional areas? Would you prefer they be placed only in the main, critical plotline? If so, what was the point in having these stretch goals in the first place? More to the point: How exactly do you suggest we take prisoners (for example) if we have no place to hold them prisoner? Should the game just let you drag them around with you on your travels? If it does, then they can no longer be called Prisoners. They're just companions. Ditto with collecting taxes. If you don't own land, how can you demand collective payment from the citizenry? You can't... at least not without it being called extortion.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Stun

[Jarmo]

Guess the optimal solution would be to be able to name someone (a companion or just some passerby) as the castellan (or whatever is the right term).

 

So I got a castle, well you dude can take care of it because I don't give a damn.

Collect taxes and fix the roof or something, maybe hire some guards, makes no difference to me.

 

So you wouldn't get any management decisions, you'd get notified if the keep is under attack or there's a visitor,

but you could just ignore it all and let the castlemanagerboss handle everything, or step in if things sound interesting.

[Gfted1]

 

D3 has made me accustomed to picking up everything yellow and above (hey, I need the gold yo)

(...)

Also, I hope we can pick up gold just by running over/near it.

 

This is how I see this issue. Eternity is not hack'n'slash, mate. The defeated foes, opened containers etc. will not throw up with whatever gold or gems or other treasures they have stored. Gold will not be laying around on the ground like sand on the beach. You want to loot something, then you just gotta do it the cklick-on-it-and-check-what-is-inside way. As a character, you will decide if you take all the content, or just pick some that you like and leave the unwanted trash. This is how it worked in all the games that devs are taking inspiration from (BG, IwD, P:T). So, even if there is a pile of gold on the floor left for a reason, it will not magically appear in your bag because of your immense force of magnetism or gravity or some other mojo. (note to self: magnetism spell, that would be interesting)

 

Am I right, or am I right?

 

That reminds me, I hope there's a "take all" option in addition to individually clicking items. I plan on vacuuming every item from every foe/container/laying around.

 

Also, Id be thrilled for a console command list.

[karelia]

 

 

D3 has made me accustomed to picking up everything yellow and above (hey, I need the gold yo)

(...)

Also, I hope we can pick up gold just by running over/near it.

 

This is how I see this issue. Eternity is not hack'n'slash, mate. The defeated foes, opened containers etc. will not throw up with whatever gold or gems or other treasures they have stored. Gold will not be laying around on the ground like sand on the beach. You want to loot something, then you just gotta do it the cklick-on-it-and-check-what-is-inside way. As a character, you will decide if you take all the content, or just pick some that you like and leave the unwanted trash. This is how it worked in all the games that devs are taking inspiration from (BG, IwD, P:T). So, even if there is a pile of gold on the floor left for a reason, it will not magically appear in your bag because of your immense force of magnetism or gravity or some other mojo. (note to self: magnetism spell, that would be interesting)

 

Am I right, or am I right?

 

That reminds me, I hope there's a "take all" option in addition to individually clicking items. I plan on vacuuming every item from every foe/container/laying around.

 

Also, Id be thrilled for a console command list.

 

A console would be amazing, but I fear that this is seen as a relic by developers, and the absolute mania modern devs have against cheating, which used to be commonplace and used for fun, could perhaps influence even Obsidian into not including such options :\

[martix]

A console would be amazing, but I fear that this is seen as a relic by developers, and the absolute mania modern devs have against cheating, which used to be commonplace and used for fun, could perhaps influence even Obsidian into not including such options :\

A lack of console is like a dm with a stick up his ass.

 

And I guess strongholds are becoming sort of an Obsidian staple.

One I've always found fun. 

 

Also - try to design it like a character in the narrative, not just a boring pile of digital stone.

[Osvir]

I'm a completionist and will be doing the stronghold. But also I'm sure there will be 'Solo game and No Stronghold' Challenge threads.

 

I'm with you. But I'll probably explore the game several times and try different builds (3 party game, 4 party game, traditional 6 party game, lots of adventurer hall companions on one game, Solo on one game. Ultimate Hardcore of Pain Mode+Difficulty+ Mods mode etc. etc.)

 

I believe I will also assess the importance of the Stronghold during actual Gameplay. "Do I really want to get this?" etc. etc. depends on circumstance.

 

However, Tim says in the update "You will be offered the Stronghold before Act 1 is done"... makes me curious... let's take the instance where I say "No". Is it permanently "No" or is it "Maybe later"?

 

Does someone else take control of the Stronghold if I say "No"? (Some random Faction or a good/bad-relationship Faction?)

 

Because it would be kind of interesting to see how that could be handled, let's say I say "No" to the Stronghold right away and continue on my journey. Later in the game, maybe in mid-Act 2 or late-Act 2 I can besiege it or do some sort of Quest to "take it". Of course, all the upgrades and such would be a little bit behind compared to if I had grabbed it right away but...... it was my choice to do so right?

 

Similarly... a bit complex perhaps but... depending on which Faction gets the Stronghold (If I choose "No"), maybe there could be some "Faction" relevant Upgrades that are already finished? Perhaps even, but this is most complex, get some "unique" Faction items or Faction upgrades done to the Stronghold if someone else becomes owner of the Stronghold.

 

Guard Faction = They'll upgrade the Armory the most if you're not the owner.

Wizard Faction = They'll upgrade the Library the most if you're not the owner.

Rogue Faction = They'll upgrade the Mission-relevant section if you're not the owner (or something "Information" or "Spying" relevant).

 

Furthermore, turning it around, something I asked a couple of pages ago... what happens if I say "Yes" to the Stronghold the second I can get it and later in the game I lose it to some Faction. Do we simply barge in and destroy as many intruders as possible until they run away?

 

And also, a little bit "gamifying" but it makes sense somewhat.... about being "notified" of an attack on the Stronghold. Assassin's Creed: Revelations got a pretty neat mechanic where you can defend your points on the map "on remote". Could the notifications kind of work like that? "Defend the Stronghold!" but you don't really need to walk back, instead you get to control your "Adventurer's Hall"+VIP companions stationed at the Stronghold and defend it "On remote"... so to speak.

 

I think it could be a nice little feature instead of "Gosh now I have to walk back through the world map to the Stronghold, deal with the attackers and then go back to this place".

 

It could be: "Okay I'll take control of my guys over at the Stronghold and then when it's done I'll get back to where I left off with my adventuring party". This too should be optional of course a la some notification~ (carrier pigeon) "Do you want to go home to base or should we take care of it?", maybe I want to go all the way back and flank the attacking enemies or my adventuring party is much stronger than what I have in the Stronghold (safety first, sometimes).

 

Finally: If the attack is immensely powerful, could you ask for aid from friendly Factions?

 

- "There's no end to them!!"

- "Run to the pigeon nest! Quick! We have to get reinforcements!!" or send some runner or something

Edited September 6, 2013 by Osvir

[milczyciel]

I am accustomed with and in fact like the idea of exclusive content. On the other hand I came to think, that what is and what isn't optional content is less of a definition or developer's decision and more of a one's way of playing the game. For example I'm a completionist, maybe even an extreme one, and that makes most of the content that others call "optional" a must have for me. Watcher's Keep example is great here, as personally I can not imagine playing BG2 without completing it and feel like the only option I have there is how am I going to deal with a demogorgon. Don't get me wrong - I understand that it's only my "fault" and a developer can't do much about it. So, yes, I agree that technically "optional" is everything that's outside of core story line and which we do not have to do at all, to see credits rolling.

Therefore, recognizing my own flawed (not in my opinion, but I feel like some would call it that way) way of playing I won't ask for making it even for those, who do not want to play Stronghold "sidequest" but still would like to keep all the bonuses it provides.

What I would like to see, is a game world recognizing my decision. Sure, we don't know in what circumstances one's going to acquire the stronghold, but for the sake of example let's imagine it was made public. I can imagine someone powerful/wealthy enough to "give" it to me, being quite unhappy by my "don't care" attitude or maybe even straightforward refusal (many in game possibilities here)? On the other hand, this imaginary benefactor's enemies could feel quite opposite about my inappropriate behavior thus providing player possibility to gain additional side quest, random encounter, sudden shift in opposing faction's opinion about me...

Heck, it wold be awesome to see the fortress I reluctantly agreed to "take" but never actually attended to, to be burned and ransacked (I've mentioned it before in this thread) and/or settled by someone else (namely bandits, homeless, someone who meanwhile got in favor of aforementioned benefactor etc). Not to mention few dialog lines recognizing how stupid (or not) it was to miss "an occasion like that" thrown in by a follower or NPC here and there.

In short - make it somehow meaningful and I won't mind missing the additional content Otherwise it will feel like I am doing something I shouldn't.

 

And I agree with Jarmo - butler or bailiff* would be a fine and quite fitting addition to the Stronghold. I can easily imagine landlords who never very much attended to the matters of their demesne* because he paid others to do it, being busy hunting, crusading, court-plotting and so on. Heck, you could even make him a meaningful character (butler that is) like Stevens from "The Remains of the Day".

 

* - I totally googled those two words, so I hope they mean what I hope they do 

Edited September 6, 2013 by milczyciel

[lolaldanee]

 

Hi, I made an account here just to say this:

 

Please, make sure that not keeping a stronghold is possible. If I decide that I don't like the mini-game that this really is, I'd hate to feel like I'm missing out on something really important. Please, don't make me mess about with taxes, reputation, attacks and whatnot just for, say, having access to those botanical gardens. Or just having a place to safely stash items. The stronghold should be a cool option, not something players will have to take part in to have a full game experience.

I respectfully disagree. There's a lot of systems going into this feature, and it would be artificial and difficult to separate it from the storyline. The stronghold was very much not an option in Neverwinter Nights 2, and IMO it was one of the better parts of the game, so it's not like there's no precedent.

 

I.e., my vote would be to fully integrate the stronghold into the storyline. Just like the dungeon of Od Nua for that matter.

 

However, I think it ought to be possible to complete the game while being a lousy baron, just like there ought to be plenty of optional areas in the Od Nua dungeon. Always assuming suitable consequences naturally – missing out on cool/powerful items and/or XP, like with any optional content.

 

i very much agree with those two points, if they are there they should be tied into the story at least a bit

[Fluffle]

Yeah, now we're talking

 

There should be consequences if you refuse it.

 

The stronghold exists after all, even if you say "no".

 

So what happens to it then?

 

And these (hopefully not only negative) consequences would be something exclusively for those that refuse.

(Once again, it doesn't have to be much, and certainly not as much as the stronghold itself)

 

My fear is that if you say "no" that the game goes on like the stronghold never existed in the first place.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Fluffle

[Osvir]

And also, a little bit "gamifying" but it makes sense somewhat.... about being "notified" of an attack on the Stronghold. Assassin's Creed: Revelations got a pretty neat mechanic where you can defend your points on the map "on remote". Could the notifications kind of work like that? "Defend the Stronghold!" but you don't really need to walk back, instead you get to control your "Adventurer's Hall"+VIP companions stationed at the Stronghold and defend it "On remote"... so to speak.

Admittedly, and explanatory, in Revelations (on my playthrough) I did kind of get bored of the defensive missions, and the more I leveled my Assassin's, the less "Defender" missions I wanted to do. I became more prone to stop a defensive mission from even starting to begin with the more time that carried on. The moment the map flashed in some manner indicating that I would have to play a "Tower Defense" mission to not lose a point on the map I stopped it from even happening.

 

That, in my opinion, was the flaw of Revelations. Because I liked the Tower Defense missions in the beginning of the game, but it was so tedious to run across the entire map to defend the points. And when you finally can defend the points by "remote" it's not interesting anymore (by getting "Master Assassins" who can defend the towers by themselves). It should've almost been the other way around, in Revelations (i.e: defend the positions on remote from the very start).

 

So, what do I want to say? The "remote" function was a great feature in Revelations... but the problem was that when you get it you don't want to defend any more points because you've gotten tired of it. All I ask for is that if Obsidian are considering a "remote" function for the Stronghold Defense missions is to hand it out early enough that it can be used before "Defending" has become a chore.

 

Additionally: Do not send wave upon wave upon wave of enemies too frequently. In Revelations it became, eventually, "AGAIN!?". Though you had like 15-20 points to defend. The Stronghold is just a single point. Still! Don't send Bandits and Factions at it too often, I think.

 

Aaaaand finally: Are you considering Stronghold Defense End Game Missions? (A sort of unlockable Bonus?) "When you finish the game you can challenge the Stronghold Defense Survival with endless waves of enemies!" or something I don't even know what the Stronghold defensive missions are going to be like but for some reason I envision them being awesome!

 

- Import your End-Game Savefile

- Play Stronghold Defense or Stronghold Attack

- Modify Extra Adventurer's Hall Companions (Optional)

- Endless Waves/Time Trial. Compare scores/wave completion with community~

 

Why am I suggesting this?? Because I realized that Stronghold defense can be a very fun game in itself, I used to play em a lot (lots of Tower Defense and Castle Defense games). But if we get too few in the core game experience, it'll leave a sour tooth a la "I want more but I'll have to start all over!" and if it's too many in the core game experience it's going to be "What a bore....".

 

With a sort of "Challenge Enemy Waves!" Game Mode the Player can moderate how much he wants to play it (specially if there's only a few instances in the core game experience).

 

If not an Unlockable "Post-Completion" Game Mode, maybe you can go to some "Butler" or some "Manager" at the Stronghold and enter some psuedo-experience giving "Stronghold Defense" Game Mode and moderate how much you want to play the defensive mode as a "Mini-Game" with no impact on Experience, Story and with no "Weapon/Item/Thing" Rewards. Simply, "Stronghold Defense Mini-Game". Kind of... "I really liked the Stronghold Defense missions but I felt there were quite a few of them so I can go talk to this [Character] and play some more".

 

.... and suddenly I'm starting to think about Multiplayer, but I think I'm going to drop that before I go overboard I'm just brainstorming!!

 

Note to self and everyone else: Read Ieo's signature

 

But maybe something to consider for future installments if you come to the same Multiplayer Stronghold conclusions as I do. One Defends a Stronghold, the other besieges it. 2 Parties with only Adventurer Hall companions or co-op defensive, or co-op besieging.... aaaah!!! *stops*

Edited September 6, 2013 by Osvir

[Stun]

Yeah, now we're talking

 

There should be consequences if you refuse it.

 

The stronghold exists after all, even if you say "no".

 

So what happens to it then?

 

 

<...> 

My fear is that if you say "no" that the game goes on like the stronghold never existed in the first place.

Actually, from I can glean from Tim's description in the update, the Stronghold doesn't exist until you decide that it's going to be a stronghold. Until then, it's just a ruined castle... probably one that you just finished clearing. If you say No, then I imagine it'll just stay the way you left it.

 

Which makes sense. That's how BG2 did its strongholds.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Stun

[Fluffle]

Well does it make sense?

 

Does it make sense that Renald is not able to find anyone else but you (if you are a thief character)

to run Mae Var's guild (after he has been disposed of)?

Would Renald just leave it empty?

 

I actually find it quite interesting:

What happens to Imnesvale if you are no ranger (or refuse to be its protector)?

Shouldn't there be consequences for Imnesvale?

 

If there are no consequences then being the protector of Imnesvale wouldn't have a point.

Imnesvale only gets endangered (after the initial quest) when you choose to be the protector.

Why isn't it endangered when it does not have a protector (once again, after the initial quest)?

 

When you do not take over the de'Arnise keep for example, the Roenalds do.

And this is what I mean. There are consequences for this refusal.

 

And you could build upon this. You could expand on this idea.

(Not on a large scale, just something minor)

 

Maybe with the Keep in their hands the Roenalds would do something that may effect you or Nalia

on which you have to react. This does not happen however.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Fluffle

[Stun]

Well, considering that BG2's world story does not take place over the course of decades or years, but rather, just days and months, it's NOT a stretch of logic to assume that "nothing significant" happens if you decline a stronghold offer. For my own entertainment, lets run through BG2's stronghold scenarios.

 

1) First, The theives guild stronghold. I can totally see Renal being unable to find a suitable replacement for Mae'var. After all, The Shadow thieves are being assaulted by the vampires. They're currently having trouble maintaining the thieves they already have, let alone being able to find new ones to expand their operations in the docks. They're not in a rush anyway. There's no competition to the Shadow Thieves. No rival thieves guild in Athkatla.

 

2) The Ranger stronghold - Imesvale is a small sleepy village. It's not a stretch to assume nothing happens if you refuse. But just in case, the existing, pre-stronghold story covers the bases. Madulf and his Ogre band protect the village.

 

3) The planar Sphere - You cleared it before the stronghold offer and it is forever rendered inert. So literally nothing can happen at this point. I suppose the Cowled wizards could take it over if they find it abandoned, but what difference would that make?

 

4) The Paladin & Cleric Strongholds. Totally inconsequential. You technically can't even call them strongholds since a) you don't get them. You just get your own little room wthin them; and b) Virtually nothing happens in them even if you DO accept them as your strongholds. So what happens if you refuse? Nothing. The Temples existed and functioned fine and will continue to do so without an extra cleric (you), and so does the Paladin Order.

 

5) The D'arnise Keep - This one is tricky, since if you refuse it, and also refuse to accept Nalia as a companion, then the Roenals DO take control of it, almost immediately in fact. But if Nalia's in your party, then, storywise, it's vitually the same as if you took it as a stronghold, you just don't get the silly little quests every 5 days or so. or the tax money.

 

6) The Druid Grove - Continues to be run by a competant Druid (and Cernd btw) if you refuse it. And that's not hard to believe, since you're told that it's always been run fine up until Faldorn invaded, and now that she's gone, it goes back to normal.

 

7) The Bard's Playhouse. Well... if you don't take it, then that Halfling who runs the bar is in charge of finding another Patron. When I don't do that stronghold, I simply assume he's still searching. No big deal, really. It's just a playhouse. Who cares.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Stun

[milczyciel]

Actually, from Tim's description in the update, the Stronghold doesn't exist until you decide that it's going to be a stronghold. If you say No, then I imagine it stays as it is: a Dungeon/Ruin you just got done clearing.

So i went back to read Tim's description once again and cant say I see it the same way you do. I don't mean that your envisionment is wrong, but as far as I can tell, we simply don't know enough about Stronghold "backstory" to make valid assumptions. And that lead us to the current state of "wild speculations"

 

I'll admit that I'm not sure how would I feel about pre-introduction Stronghold, being your out of the mill dungeon, that you are going to clear out or just did and learned it's a reward in itself. Surely that would tie all loose ends, and explain why it lacks any impact on the further exploits of my merry band of misfits or on the gameworld/story line in general. After all what the eye doesn't see, the heart doesn't grieve over right?

I'm afraid it would make me feel uneasy about something missing from the general picture. Something only I would be to blame, because I did it to myself by (for example) taking part in KS campaign and reading thoroughly most of the updates.

Still I can imagine, that for someone fresh to the PE it could be great to discover in his assumed second playthrough, that a specific pile of rocks he didn't care about before, could be transformed into additional, joy inducing content (or a chore, depending on ones taste).

 

So my question is, what if it is not an abandoned ruin on the verge of civilization, hanging in a limbo, waiting for me to happen? What if there are people already living there, in poverty (or not, I'm just trying to add some drama ), relying solely on a premise of brass-balled hero who will relieve it's incompetent predecessor from his governing duties? That's where I'll be pretty disappointed to hear from the game that "not interested? ok, nothing happened, move along."

 

Additionally while I was struggling to sound coherent, Fluffle just casually walked in and nailed my concerns whith de'Arnise keep example, so there you have it... or... something 

Edited September 6, 2013 by milczyciel

[ORDUCKMANIAC]

I absolutely love these ideas! I am really interested in learning about these guests. That will be a cool new aspect. I think you should dig a little deeper into this, like a tavern will increase the traffic of guest coming to your stronghold. You can then upgrade the tavern to have ladies, better beds, better food, to the point where no one would want to leave. Unless, you wanted them too then you could put them in the room that no one wants to stay in. ) Add suites and good looking waitresses. I don't know just a thought. You might also add other things around the stronghold for them to do like the gardens, exotic animals, trophy room, treasury. All these things will increase guest traffic and increase the amount of people that come to your Stronghold. What ya think?

[Bill Gates' Son]

Can I just have a simply house as an option?  If I'm playing a rogue or mage, then I really have no interest in being a lord of uninteresting peasants or looking after some stinky stronghold.  

Edited September 6, 2013 by Bill Gates' Son

[rjshae]

If you take the stronghold, then presumably certain additional quests would become available to you. If you do not, then, by a certain point in the game, perhaps the target(s) of one or more of those missed quests could move in and take over the stronghold. An example might be a bandit overlord that you would normally have faced in a field somewhere; instead, you must battle your way into the now-reinforced stronghold and defeat him there.

[GrinningReaper659]

 

Just to be completely clear, I don't mind content/items/etc. being blocked off based on player choices, but based on my above arguments I simply don't like it in this context. Content and items are being developed which would make sense to be applied to the game at large, but are then being restricted to being available only to those with strongholds (as far as I can tell).

What do you mean by "game at large"? Due to the nature of the myriad of stretch goals that were met in order to give us the game we're getting, your argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Project eternity is a game made up of a bunch of pieces*. The Stronghold IS a part of the "game at large".

 

*For example, The mega dungeon will be optional. The stronghold is optional. The named companions are optional. The adventurers' hall is optional. Crafting is optional. Hell even combat will be optional.

 

So what's your suggested alternative to these mechanics, items and mini-quests being exclusively tied to these optional areas? Would you prefer they be placed only in the main, critical plotline? If so, what was the point in having these stretch goals in the first place? More to the point: How exactly do you suggest we take prisoners (for example) if we have no place to hold them prisoner? Should the game just let you drag them around with you on your travels? If it does, then they can no longer be called Prisoners. They're just companions. Ditto with collecting taxes. If you don't own land, how can you demand collective payment from the citizenry? You can't... at least not without it being called extortion.

 

"What do you mean be 'game at large'?"

What I mean is that some things which can be done by the owner of a stronghold could also logically be done by someone that did not own a stronghold. I already mentioned the possibility of taking a prisoner by turning someone into a militia. Alternatively, I see no reason that you couldn't take a defeated foe back to your camp on a temporary basis to interrogate, torture, or collect a ransom for their release.

 

I never suggested that taxes should be collected by players on land not owned by the player, that's obviously ridiculous.

 

I think that taking the stronghold is being strongarmed into the game as the "right" choice by providing no logical alternatives for those that don't. I hate to repeat myself, but do you not think it possible that a pure adventurer would have more possibilities to run into unique encounters while adventuring than an adventurer who spends a great deal of time running his lands? Is owning a stronghold the only conceivable way to take someone prisoner?

 

So, as I see it, there are two issues here: there are no logical alternative encounters, etc. for those that choose to spend their time adventuring instead of running a stronghold and the surrounding lands; and there are game mechanics (such as taking prisoners) being tied to the stronghold which don't make sense as needing to be tied to the stronghold.

 

But, as I've already said, I understand that the scope of the game must be limited in some ways and I understand if the team doesn't have the time/budget to include these sorts of meaningful reactions based on player choices.

[Messier-31]

^ Yeah, what he said. Polać mu!

 

(polish for "pour him (some vodka)"

Edited September 6, 2013 by Messier-31