Update #63: Stronghold!

[Falkon Swiftblade]

holy geebus, this was an unsuspected surprise update. Everything sounds pretty awesome, there are a few things that seem kinda obvious to me that I don't know how you guys plan on reducing the suspension of disbelief, but the concept of taxing for loot sounds interesting, but I've yet to play a game that had enough of a population of npc's and buildings where something like that would make sense. Most rpg's have like 9 npc's walking about and like 5 buildings total you can interact with. I don't know how those 9 folks are going to populate cities to fund the upkeep of my abby...? Just something I'm wondering about...

 

The other part of keeping prisoners is really a cool and unique option too, but it almost sounds like that's missed content that we lose out on if we don't play that way. I'm all for a pacifist play style, but I'm not a fan of a system that dictates I have to follow the formula of game mechanics, because then it feels too scripted and not very organic. As long as there are options in place for similar rewards elsewhere than I'm totally cool. I'm even fine with the system as discussed, just as long as the game mechanic isn't being designed as if I have to play that way to win. I'd like having the option of how to progress my character while reducing grinding unless I choose too.

PS, can someone refresh my memory, wasn't there mention of an expansion coming out shortly after PE releases on scope of BG TOB mentioned in the kickstarter? Have you guys considered how the Abby or castle whatever it will be will be used in future updates? Will it grow over time in future expansions?

[Lephys]

I don't understand why something needs an alternative. If you did that with side quests, then we'd have an infinite number of side quests. "Don't want to help this old lady find her cat to get this Ring Of The Old Lady? Well, don't worry, there's SOME OTHER way to get the Ring of the Old Lady! 8D!"

 

Great, and what if you don't want to do the other thing you have to do to get that ring? Well, then you should be able to do something ELSE to get it. And so on, and so forth, until literally everyone in the universe who COULD potentially desire the benefits of that ring gets what they're entitled to.

 

If it was something like "Having the stronghold lets you FAST TRAVEL! And if you don't take it, you can't!", I could see the problem. That's removed functionality. But, if you get unique ingredients that let you make a special cloak, and there are other cloaks in the game, and other items that also impart the same type of properties (armor/stat boosts/effects/etc.) that the cloak in question does, then I don't see why you can't exclude those who didn't go through the stronghold effort from getting the cloak.

 

I don't see what about stronghold "rewards" is inherently destined to be gained separately from the stronghold management. Not that that means there isn't anything, but could anyone give an example of something that's we know that only the stronghold will give us that we should get elsewhere?

[Fluffle]

I don't understand why something needs an alternative. If you did that with side quests, then we'd have an infinite number of side quests. "Don't want to help this old lady find her cat to get this Ring Of The Old Lady? Well, don't worry, there's SOME OTHER way to get the Ring of the Old Lady! 8D!"

 

Great, and what if you don't want to do the other thing you have to do to get that ring? Well, then you should be able to do something ELSE to get it. And so on, and so forth, until literally everyone in the universe who COULD potentially desire the benefits of that ring gets what they're entitled to.

 

 

Simply put: Because not everyone plays the way you do.

 

And I think people want to feel that their way of playing is represented to a certain degree ingame.

 

Does your argument work the other way around? When you do not understand that something needs an alternative, are

you saying that nothing needs an alternative?

 

Should we cancel all options ever - and on each and every occasion there is only one way, one solution to a problem?

 

I do not think that you meant this, honestly. But I do neither think that everyone who wants some minor

consequence of refusing the stronghold ingame demands that there should be infinite numbers of alternatives for each and every quest.

 

This seems like exaggeration.

 

In your example, that quest seems to be bound to characters that like to help someone else.

That is fine. Make the ring only available to those.

 

But maybe put in another minor sidequest, where only those who'd rather roleplay an evil alignment could gain an item.

 

Or if you refuse to help the old lady, let her spread the word, how "rude" you are.

Let it have an impact of some kind.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Fluffle

[Naurgalen]

Well, first of all, I really like the ideas for the stronghold, and like almost everyone said: i love the prison idea.

 

Still, I have a couple of suggestions:

 

1) What if putting legendary weapons in your stronghold increases the "prestige" it gets and ofc the chances a thief will try to get that item...

 

2) Make some upgrades incompatible. Like you can have a church for only 1 god, the wizards tower can only be focused to 1 kind of magic, the "well of souls" can be used to grow a druid tree OR a necromancers altar  etc... . That way our choices matter more and there is more re playability.

 

3) Make the Stronghold be a part of the world... maybe a dragon appears early on and you have to make a truce so he doesn't destroy all, maybe you can late kill him, or pleadl to protect you, or manipulate to attack your enemy's... and the same for other monsters, lords and entity's.

 

PS: And I know this wont get in, but i would LOVE if somehow, if you play a wizard/artificer you can "make" a spell / artifact from within a certain amount of choices in your library! Its like "forging your weapon" for a warrior but is very strange in most rpgs.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Naurgalen

[GrinningReaper659]

I don't understand why something needs an alternative. If you did that with side quests, then we'd have an infinite number of side quests. "Don't want to help this old lady find her cat to get this Ring Of The Old Lady? Well, don't worry, there's SOME OTHER way to get the Ring of the Old Lady! 8D!"

 

Great, and what if you don't want to do the other thing you have to do to get that ring? Well, then you should be able to do something ELSE to get it. And so on, and so forth, until literally everyone in the universe who COULD potentially desire the benefits of that ring gets what they're entitled to.

 

If it was something like "Having the stronghold lets you FAST TRAVEL! And if you don't take it, you can't!", I could see the problem. That's removed functionality. But, if you get unique ingredients that let you make a special cloak, and there are other cloaks in the game, and other items that also impart the same type of properties (armor/stat boosts/effects/etc.) that the cloak in question does, then I don't see why you can't exclude those who didn't go through the stronghold effort from getting the cloak.

 

I don't see what about stronghold "rewards" is inherently destined to be gained separately from the stronghold management. Not that that means there isn't anything, but could anyone give an example of something that's we know that only the stronghold will give us that we should get elsewhere?

Hmmm, I must assume that this isn't directed at me since it, specifically the first four lines, would make no sense in relation to my arguments, but I'll take a crack at your final question here (one more time):

 

1. The ability to imprison foes (and all that ends up going along with this - collecting money or rare, unique items for ransom; interrogation; etc.)

2. The (extra) rare merchants and visitors that show up, when it stands to reason that the time freed up by not running a stronghold and lands could allow the adventurer the opportunity to run into unique encounters of their own since they're out in the world more.

3. Bonuses - If having a library gives you lore bonuses and having training grounds gives you strength bonuses, then potentially sleeping at an inn or in the home of a lord whose estate has such things should improve your stats as well, right? I mean, the point here is that your stronghold will either be the only building with a library in the game (that you can sleep in), or some other places you can sleep will have a library but you won't benefit from it. Either way, the effect is being restricted to the stronghold in a way that doesn't necessarily make sense.

 

 

As I've said a few times, I can accept it if it stays at it is now, but surely you can see that there are plenty of possibilities for some of these stronghold-specific things applying outside of the stronghold.

[rjshae]

2) Make some upgrades incompatible. Like you can have a church for only 1 god, the wizards tower can only be focused to 1 kind of magic, the "well of souls" can be used to grow a druid tree OR a necromancers altar  etc... . That way our choices matter more and there is more re playability.

 

I agree with the general idea that having just a few binary choices for upgrades would allow a lot of replay variety. Something I've also been wondering about is whether we'll have the option to add a shrine, and which deities we'll get to choose between.

[Lephys]

Simply put: Because not everyone plays the way you do.

 

And I think people want to feel that their way of playing is represented to a certain degree ingame.

 

Does your argument work the other way around? When you do not understand that something needs an alternative, are

you saying that nothing needs an alternative?

 

Should we cancel all options ever - and on each and every occasion there is only one way, one solution to a problem?

 

I do not think that you meant this, honestly. But I do neither think that everyone who wants some minor

consequence of refusing the stronghold ingame demands that there should be infinite numbers of alternatives for each and every quest.

 

This seems like exaggeration.

 

In your example, that quest seems to be bound to characters that like to help someone else.

That is fine. Make the ring only available to those.

 

But maybe put in another minor sidequest, where only those who'd rather roleplay an evil alignment could gain an item.

 

Or if you refuse to help the old lady, let her spread the word, how "rude" you are.

Let it have an impact of some kind.

I don't understand. At all. Why does not providing an alternative have to do with whether or not something is optional? The alternative is "don't do it." Which makes it optional.

 

You can do everything in the entire game that isn't managing the stronghold, and get all the great stuff you get for all that, and NOT DO the stronghold management, and you simply miss what the stronghold provides, which is stuff you don't actually need to do any of the other stuff in the game. If you DO manage the stronghold, you get EXTRA stuff. Extra, unnecessary stuff.

 

That, and in your suggestion to provide an "alternative" quest for the Old Lady's Ring quest, all you're doing is doubling the optional content that people are missing out on if they don't do that. The idea that it's an "alternative" is a bit silly. You can do the Old Lady's Ring quest, because you like helping people, or because you just want the ring; whatever reason, really. OR you can not-do it, because you feel it's a waste of time, or because you don't like helping people, whatever... Separately, you can either do the evil quest that gets you an item, or you can not-do the evil quest that gets you an item.

 

You've failed to point out any factor to this that makes the problem anything more than "Why should there be a task available that I don't like that gives people something I DO like?" And that's just silly.

 

As was said earlier in the thread, if the reward for a particular task/effort wasn't desirable or applicable to the rest of the game, then it wouldn't be significant at all.

 

"One right way to play"? Well, yeah, in a sense, there is. Being able to kill things is the right way to play. Why? Because, if you can't kill anything, you can't make it through combat encounters, which are integral to the game. But, getting more stuff just 'cause it exists, even though it's unnecessary? That's not labeling something the "right way to play." If you happen to feel the need to get all the unique items in the game, then you have to do all the different stuff in the game to do that. It's not the obligation of the game's design to make sure you don't have to do anything you don't want to in order to get things you might feel the personal need to acquire. How would they even figure that out?

 

And, again, how significant would any of the options be if all they provided was completely pointless stuff? "What do you get for managing the stronghold? Pretty much nothing that's really going to affect your playthrough any differently than anything else in the game." Yeah, that'd be great.

 

I mean, are we going to attack lockpicking next? "Hey, wait, what if I don't want to put points into lockpicking with any of my characters, because I just like to max out everyone's combat capabilities." Well, then you don't get the spiffy things that are locked away behind stuff.

 

And, since the stronghold comes with a heavy expenditure of both effort AND actual money/resources (for the upgrades and such), the direct "alternative" is simply keeping all that money and all those resources, right off the bat. The simple act of not spending them on the stronghold equals the reward of being able to spend them on other things that the person who spent them all on the stronghold can't spend them on.

[Stun]

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.

And we're getting that. Except for 1) taking prisoners; and 2) collecting taxes, (which we'll discuss below) I'm pretty sure the vast majority of the things you can do in the strong hold you can also do in other parts of the game. ie. quests, ingredient harvesting, fighting off bandits, finding storage spaces for your loot, getting access to crafting stations; Training; etc. etc. I seriously don't see the gripe here, unless your stance is that there shouldn't be ANYTHING exclusive to the stronghold, in which case, see my gripes about POINTLESS content in RPGs.

 

 

But nit-pick time:

 

 

I already mentioned the possibility of taking a prisoner by turning someone into a militia.

Thats... not taking prisoners. That's turning someone over to the authorities. Huge friggin difference. Just about every Crpg since 1980 has done that tired cliche. In the meantime, You've just sucked all the awesome out of the unique concept of actually taking someone prisoner yourself.

 

 

 

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.

Your camp? Do we get our own personal camp in this game? And if so, wouldn't that be the same concept as a stronghold, just with less of the fancy stuff?

 

 

 

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

Right, but again, it's one of the very FEW things that this stronghold is offering that can't be had any other way. And even TAX collecting is not totally exclusive, since the game will obviously offer you a ton of other ways to make money.

 

 

 

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?

We cannot know the answer to this until we learn the nature of both the game world and the stronghold encounters themselves. The stronghold could feature encounters of a more political scope, in which case, a wandering, live-off-the-land type of adventurer won't have as easy an access to such questlines, no. On the other hand, if exploration is going to be Elder scrollish, then sure, the wandering explorer stands to discover more of the world than someone who spends the majority of his time behind the walls of his castle.

 

 

 

Is owning a stronghold the only conceivable way to take someone prisoner?

You mean, owning a prison? Yes. Unless the game lets you become a member of the city guard, in which case, I suppose you'll have access to the city's prison system, and then, via creative larping, you'll be able to visit that prison and call that prisoner "yours". Edited September 7, 2013 by Stun

[Lephys]

As I've said a few times, I can accept it if it stays at it is now, but surely you can see that there are plenty of possibilities for some of these stronghold-specific things applying outside of the stronghold.

I'll agree that certain things being tied to the stronghold don't necessarily make sense. But, then again, there're a lot of factors being abstracted all at once. I mean, with the imprisonment, who's to say you can't capture people, stronghold or no, but you don't actually have a secure facility in which to hold them unless you have the stronghold? With the resting and training and studying, that's in addition to whatever you can do out in the world. In other words, even if there's not a specific representation of your bringing each and every book you find, building a library can represent your ability to now store all the documents and books that you'd LIKE to have collected in one place, in one place, and that now you can actually sit there and access it all, together, and cross-reference things, etc., you may partake in a significantly improved session of study. Same with training. The facilities for training would constitute an advantage in the ability to effectively train. Therefore, it can be assumed that you "train" in places other than the stronghold, from time to time, but that the bonus comes from the increased effectiveness of your training, which you cannot obtain without the proper facilities, which I suppose you could simply build elsewhere, but then... that would be a little silly. Just being able to build single components of the stronghold, wherever you'd like. *shrug*

 

Anywho, the only bonuses they mention (from the Training Grounds -- STR -- and the Library -- Lore) are temporary. So, how is insisting that you should be able to acquire those same temporary bonuses without spending money on a stronghold Training Grounds and Library any different from insisting that you should be able to get the effects of a potion without actually buying that potion and managing its use?

 

As for the rare merchants/item opportunities, how is that any different from, say... a black market? If you have to meet certain criteria to get access to a black market, then you'd get unique things, would you not? It'd be a little silly if they only sold stuff you could just get everywhere else throughout the land.

 

So, all-in-all, let me make this comparison:

 

How is the stronghold unlike a piece of armor? You can get all the other pieces of armor, and get armor bonuses and such, but if you don't buy the helmet, you don't get the bonus from that helmet. Why should you be able to get the bonus from that helmet without buying that helmet? It's not like you don't get armor bonuses unless you buy a helmet. You just don't get that particular armor bonus unless you get that helmet.

 

If you shouldn't have to go through a stronghold to get offered rare wares, then why should you have to do anything specific, at all, to procure a rare item? What's the difference between only being able to acquire a unicorn horn from a specific merchant, who happens to only sell his prized item in a prestigious enough establishment, and only being able to acquire a unicorn horn if you go on a very tough quest to hunt down and kill a unicorn? Or, better yet, what if the only unicorn horn in existence is locked away in a masterwork, magical chest, and you need 100 lockpick skill to open it? Or you can only get it through extreme diplomacy. Someone has it, and if they owe you a huge debt of gratitude because you prevented a ton of bloodshed, they present it to you as a token of their appreciation?

 

Are all of these things wrongly exclusive situations in which to be able to procure a rare/unique object/item/option?

Edited September 6, 2013 by Lephys

[milczyciel]

I would like to add, that in my not so humble opinion, Stronghold is no ordinary sidequest, because I cannot recall even a single "optional adventure" in any game I've played, with so varied and generous reward. Quite the opposite, and perhaps that's why so many of us see that as a grave injustice 

I'm afraid that neither stronghold or mega dungeon are or should be considered being your typical sidequest, especially if we'll believe that additional funds were needed to implement specifically them in the game. Yeah, we could argue if that was just a marketing, but I do not like the implications so.. You know, I'll pass.

 

 

 

And, since the stronghold comes with a heavy expenditure of both effort AND actual money/resources (for the upgrades and such), the direct "alternative" is simply keeping all that money and all those resources, right off the bat. The simple act of not spending them on the stronghold equals the reward of being able to spend them on other things that the person who spent them all on the stronghold can't spend them on.

 

 I believe it's quite possible, that despite Obsidian's best effort, both sides (those who do the Stronghold, and those who do not) will sooner or later end up with enough "gold" to buy whatever they want. And that "when" factor is hardly an advantage, not to mention reward, especially considering our (gamers) ingenuity to exploit games mechanics.

[Lephys]

I would like to add, that in my not so humble opinion, Stronghold is no ordinary sidequest, because I cannot recall even a single "optional adventure" in any game I've played, with so varied and generous reward.

And yet, it can be thought of as an array of side quests, since you don't just click a button and either spend the maximum amount of time, money and resources on it or none at all.

 

Don't care about interrogating/holding prisoners? Don't build a prison.

 

Don't care about any other particular facet of the stronghold? Don't do it.

 

It's just a collection of optional things that are interrelated.

 

 I believe it's quite possible, that despite Obsidian's best effort, both sides (those who do the Stronghold, and those who do not) will sooner or later end up with enough "gold" to buy whatever they want. And that "when" factor is hardly an advantage, not to mention reward, especially considering our (gamers) ingenuity to exploit games mechanics.

Umm... I think the "when" factor is an advantage if you're choosing between pumping 20,000 gold into the 3-week construction of a Library (and having to progress through the next area with just what you've got on your person) and spending that 20,000 gold better outfitting your party before they travel through the scary forest.

 

If we're assuming you can just max out the stronghold in 10 seconds, then yeah, I guess the "when" factor would be pointless, then. But, since they've described it as an actual time-based investment, I'm pretty sure that would be a silly assumption.

 

Not to mention that if you need, say, 10,000 gold to purchase the very first upgrade to your stronghold, to even get it generating any decent amount of revenue (as it's described as basically starting out as all but a still-in-tact ruin), that means you must forego any lesser expenditures until you've saved up a full 10,000, then drop that on the upgrade, STILL going without any other purchases until you're able to get back up to an adequate amount of money for their purchase.

[Greydragon]

Besides who wants a stronghold you can never finish because you can't afford it? I prefer that toward the end game you'll be swimming in coinage; so I can explore the side quests/constructions as completely as possible.

 

As long as the rewards for completing the highest tier stronghold side missions/structures is more than generic items or gold I'll be thrilled ... perhaps fame, unique items/events/encounters/perks and some kind of minor effect on the end game/companions/stronghold residents.

[iridescence]

 

 

Simply put: Because not everyone plays the way you do.

 

And I think people want to feel that their way of playing is represented to a certain degree ingame.

 

Does your argument work the other way around? When you do not understand that something needs an alternative, are

you saying that nothing needs an alternative?

 

 

 

 

 

I think in order to have a deep and fun RPG experience, choices that you make have to have some genuine consequence within the world. If you can get the same rewards  no matter how you choose to play, then every choice is just rendered false.  RPGs should be about choices: Should I suck up to this old woman because she has something I want or treat her badly because that would come naturally to my character? That type of choice should have an impact on how the game proceeds.  

 

If you as a player, don't want to be bothered managing the stronghold, your character should at least have a chance of losing some benefit that the stronghold would give . It's not about limiting choice. It's about making choices have meaningful consequences.

[Fluffle]

If you as a player, don't want to be bothered managing the stronghold, your character should at least have a chance of losing some benefit that the stronghold would give . It's not about limiting choice. It's about making choices have meaningful consequences.

 

So what are the meaningful consequences of refusing the stronghold?

 

- "losing some benefits that the stronghold would give"

 

And that's it? I agree that that would be one of the consequences, but wouldn't there be more to it?

 

If you take over the stronghold and build it up you are going to influence what - hundreds, thousands or even more lives.

 

If you refuse the stronghold:

- What happens to the people that would pay taxes to you if you had taken the stronghold?

Whom do they now pay taxes to? How do they live their lives when you are NOT their overlord?

Does that person who they pay taxes now to get rich? Will that have an effect if you ever meet that person?

- What about the merchants that would visit your stronghold and offer rare artifacts?

Where do they go now instead? Where do they try to sell their stuff?

- What about the economical changes your stronghold would cause if you had taken it.

Without the influence of a new stronghold how does the economy develop in the surrounding lands?

- What about the people you could put into prison?

How do they live their lives not captured by you? Are you able to take them as prisoner at all without having a prison?

- What about those enemies that would try to raid your stronghold and attack it if you had accepted the stronghold?

Do they plan on attacking someone else? Who? And how does that victim react?

- What about the people you could have as hirelings if you had the stronghold?

What do they do now instead? Where are they?

- What about the time the hero spends governing the stronghold?

If he refused the stronghold, would he have more time for other adventures?

- What about your companions that are not in your active party and who could go on adventures on their own if you had the stronghold?

What do they do now instead when they are not in your party?

 

In my eyes a stronghold has such a MAJOR influence on a region, its surrounding lands and LOTS of lives that there should be

lots of "meaningful consequences" for both options:

 

A) There is a stronghold

B) There is not such a stronghold

Edited September 7, 2013 by Fluffle

[Iucounu]

BRILLIANT!!

[Sacred_Path]

One of the worst offenders of running a stronghold in games is when it's actually inconsequential. They're doing their best to avoid this pitfall, it seems. In a lot of games, your "stronghold" isn't actually a stronghold at all; it's not a fortified base that offers you real strategical advantages but requires effort, planning, and your actual physical presence. It's just a pretty house.

 

Why should there be a need to accomodate those who don't want to run their stronghold as much as those that do? Personally, I don't like companions. I prefer to customize characters to the n-th degree and otherwise have them be silent automatons. I'm not v. happy about the fact that those who choose to have interactive companions in P:E will probably get to see more content than you'd get with a fully player created party (i.e. personal quests), but I'm not complaining. There's really no need for all options in an RPG to be equal. If it's possible to win the game on normal difficulty without running a stronghold, that should be enough. I'd much rather have a game that's well balanced on all difficulty levels around the assumption that players will use all options available to them than a game with a myriad ways to play it.

[Stun]

^Amen.

 

Also, I can answer this question:

So what are the meaningful consequences of refusing the stronghold?

The fact that the game lets you refuse it should be meaningful enough. Many other games that feature strongholds won't even allow you to do that!

 

Enough already. The consequence of skipping major content is always the same: you miss out. Then the rest of us have to endure your complaining, later, when you come here and say: This game is shallow because I beat it without doing half of it..... Because that's how I like to play RPGs....I like to skip the good stuff. I'm a 'Roleplayer'!

 

 

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

Who cares about them. I certainly don't. There are people who also don't like to use parties. Should PE scrap its party-based system to accomodate them? Of course not. Instead, it should just allow them to play solo. Which it will. This is the same concept. The stronghold is optional, meaning those who don't want to do it will be able to skip it.

 

Not sure why you've decided that this non-issue is worth 10 pages of discussion

Edited September 7, 2013 by Stun

[Malekith]

 

A) There is a stronghold

B) There is not such a stronghold

 

From the way the update sounds, at the start the stronghold isn't a full castle with people already paying taxes. It wouldn't surprise me if it'll be half ruined.

So the choice above is eexactly as it sould be. or to put it differently

a) During your adventures you decide to build a stronghold out of the monster infested ruin you conquered

b) you leave it as it is and continue your adventure

[Gyges]

Sounds bloody excellent. Though, id like you to address the economy on whether proper currency sinks will be in place since we seem to eventually have a steady flow of free cash available. This is sort of a pet peeve of mine since i eventually end up with vast amounts of wealth without anything interesting to use it on. The fortress upgrades cant be the only thing as they themselves only serve to increase your wealth.

[igorina]

Not sure why you've decided that this non-issue is worth 10 pages of discussion

 

Well, to me this is the reason:

stronghold is optional - perfectly ok, but it would be good if running stronghold wouldn't be the only way to (for example) take prossioners / slaves. No one is against the idea of stronghold, it just shouldn't be the only way do do some things. Of course if you don't run stronghold there is no talking about taxes or libraries or such but there are things possible to do even when you don't run stronghold, and i wouldn't want them to be assigned and available for people who have stronghold only.

 

[milczyciel]

 

Who cares about them. I certainly don't. There are people who also don't like to use parties. Should PE scrap its party-based system to accomodate them? Of course not. Instead, it should just allow them to play solo. Which it will. This is the same concept. The stronghold is optional, meaning those who don't want to do it will be able to skip it.

 

Not sure why you've decided that this non-issue is worth 10 pages of discussion

 

 

Surprisingly I care for myself which is the main reason I've decided to write whole 6 posts in this thread, which then is 1/5 of everything I wrote on this forum so yeah, I care. In comparison you've made 7 post here, with 6 directly addressing our issues... should I say that shows how much you don't care? Or maybe I shouldn't? What would I gain by participating in that ridiculous haggle?

 

I did it, because Baldurs Gate 2 was the last instance I liked a stronghold execution, and even then only 2 maybe 3. Don't get me wrong, I'm really not surprised or offended that you don't care (I'm merely amused) because I never counted on it. All that time I was aiming somewhere else, as I strongly believe that things I hope for are in the scope of Mr Cain's imagination. And I believe that because I grew up on Fallout 1 & 2 (and later Arcanum) which gave me ****loads of consequences not only for my actions, but even for my occasional idleness.

 

So call me spoiled brat but I believe He's the one to blame Of course alongside other fine folks that contributed to those pinnacles of western rpgs

Cheers

 

 

edit: those damn typos

Edited September 7, 2013 by milczyciel

[Stun]

No one is against the idea of stronghold,

If no one is against the idea of a stronghold, then the following claim is both false and a complete non-issue:

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

^worried about a segment of players that don't actually exist...? Or what? If such people do exist, they certainly haven't come here and voiced their opinions yet, which means it must not be much of a big deal even to them. So why are we concerned for their sake?

 

 

 

it just shouldn't be the only way do do some things. Of course if you don't run stronghold there is no talking about taxes or libraries or such but there are things possible to do even when you don't run stronghold, and i wouldn't want them to be assigned and available for people who have stronghold only.

That makes no sense. So you want the stronghold to feature nothing exclusive? Why even put it in the game, then? Edited September 7, 2013 by Stun

[igorina]

 

it just shouldn't be the only way do do some things. Of course if you don't run stronghold there is no talking about taxes or libraries or such but there are things possible to do even when you don't run stronghold, and i wouldn't want them to be assigned and available for people who have stronghold only.

That makes no sense. So you want the stronghold to feature nothing exclusive? Why even put it in the game, then?

 

I think you missed the point. Why it has to be everything or nothing? I said SOME things. That means I would like SOME solutions provided by stronghold be available without it also. Like taking prisoners or slaves or similar things. There are many things exclusive featured by stronghold (also many in suggestions), so even if FEW will be available for players who don't run strongholds world won't collapse .

 

Also not enjoying strongholds isn't being against the idea. No one here said "Don't make strongholds".

Edited September 7, 2013 by igorina

[rjshae]

Sounds bloody excellent. Though, id like you to address the economy on whether proper currency sinks will be in place since we seem to eventually have a steady flow of free cash available. This is sort of a pet peeve of mine since i eventually end up with vast amounts of wealth without anything interesting to use it on. The fortress upgrades cant be the only thing as they themselves only serve to increase your wealth.

 

There's various ways they can tweak the economy so that the stronghold doesn't flood the player's coffers. For example, they don't necessarily need to give the stronghold income in the same currency as the remainder of the game. Taxes could be in a form that provides greater benefit when spent on the stronghold and its residents than elsewhere in the game. Food, for example, could be stockpiled in the grainery, then either spent on the stronghold and its employees, used to withstand a potential siege, or converted directly into gold for a net loss (50%? 75%?). Likewise, the player's gold can also be spent directly on the stronghold if the funds need bolstering.

Edited September 7, 2013 by rjshae

[Stun]

I think you missed the point. Why it has to be everything or nothing? I said SOME things.

And we're getting SOME things. Aren't we. Unless, of course, you think there will be no other place in the game world where you'll be able to gather ingredients other than the botanical gardens in the stronghold. Or unless you think there will be no other place in the game world that offers training other than the Stronghold's Library/Training grounds. Or unless you think there will be no other place to stash your loot except for at the stronghold... and No other place to get quests, and no other place to make money, and no other place to come across merchants, and no other place offering crafting stations.... etc. etc.

 

NONE of that is true, by the way, as these are all things you'll still be able to do if you decide not to get the stronghold. In other words, you're arguing for something that we're already getting, and then trying to pass this argument off as some valid criticism of the game's design. It is however, coming across as a silly bash. The same type of baseless, moronic bashing that the rest of us backers have had to endure here every single time the devs give us an update.

Edited September 7, 2013 by Stun