Update #63: Stronghold!

[milczyciel]

 

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.

Now I get it... you're an elitist and if people are indeed morons, it's not because they are writing about their concerns or hopes in regards of this or other update, but because they are trying to discuss it with you. And though I understand it's pointless and by going offtopic I am making even worse fool of myself I just can't stop laughing about that "backers" part...

Where did you get that one? Seriously, I'm far from making wild assumptions or boasting about things like how early or how much I've donated for Obsidian to make PE reality, but let me tell you, that despite the fact I've recently lost my job and despite having this bad feeling about stronghold or few other things not worth mentioning here, I am still eager to send them another cash equivalent of my 40 man-hour. Plus I don't believe in coincidences, so I wouldn't be surprised if you just bashed another backer (namely Igorina, who joined in the 4th day of KS campaing). 

 

Still the best part is that it's Them, the Devs, who must endure our constant misled ideas, already answered questions, unjustified anxiety or angry-crown like attitude. It's Obsidian who must endure it all (and much more) of that, and deliver the game (no matter if with, or without some additional content) because their good name depends on it.

I fail to see you in the "had to endure" picture, if only because you can go bat**** crazy in your despise of others (more or less invalid) opinions and the only thing that will happen is a possible warn or something likely irrelevant in comparison to the Obsidian's burden.

 

 

But you were right with one thing.

Enough already.

I'm off, at least until another such thought provoking and imagination capturing update.

I'm sorry if anyone grew tired or gutted because of my outburst / rant.

Edited September 7, 2013 by milczyciel

[igorina]

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.

 

I gave you example what kind of things i think about and these are mine concern. You ignored it and wrote things i didn't even mention (like merchnts, money, ingredients).

There is nothing "you backers" have to endure. I have my concerns and i wrote them in this topic. You quoted me - so i responded. If you find it a baseless argument - just leave it.

Edited September 7, 2013 by igorina

[Stun]

I gave you example what kind of things i think about and these are mine concern.

Um, no. You did not. The only actual example you gave was taking prisoners. And if that's the only one, then you got nothing. The stronghold SHOULD contain some exclusive content, And taking prisoners naturally becomes one of those since it will contain a prison belonging to the player character. If you can come up with another believable way for the player to get ownership of a prison, then I'm all ears. Edited September 7, 2013 by Stun

[Stun]

Now I get it... you're an elitist

Damn straight.

 

If You want everything to be non-exclusive, and for all players to be able to experience everything the game has to offer despite their choices, then go play Skyrim, or Dragon age, or some other "everything for everyone" game. We "elitists" are FINALLY getting something that's been denied to us for 10 friggin years. Stop begging the devs to dilute it.

Edited September 7, 2013 by Stun

[igorina]

 

I gave you example what kind of things i think about and these are mine concern.

Um, no. You did not. The only actual example you gave was taking prisoners. And if that's the only one, then you got nothing. The stronghold SHOULD contain some exclusive content, And taking prisoners naturally becomes one of those since it will contain a prison belonging to the player character. If you can come up with another believable way for the player to get ownership of a prison, then I'm all ears.

 

I mentioned prisioners and slaves as an example Stun.

I can also add ability to gather an army that will respond my calling, other way for idle companions to get an extra expierience when i temporary leave them behind (they can get it when i run stronghold, i see no reason why wouldn't they have own adventures even when i don't have stronghold), random attacks. It still leaves a lot of exclusive content to stronghold owners. But will your fun from a game be smaller if people who don't enjoy (for example) economical or building/ improving/ housing part too much will be able to get some of things i mentioned without running a stronghold? And taking prisoners doesn't require owning a prison, you can capture them and bring to justice (or injustice). You can use them to own goals, force to fight for you, they can escape you, there are multiple options.

Edited September 7, 2013 by igorina

[Stun]

I mentioned prisioners and slaves as an example Stun.

Yep, and again, if that's all you can come up with then you got nothing. The ability to take prisoners is something that absolutely SHOULD be exclusive to stronghold owners, since a stronghold is the only logical way for an adventurer to own a prison.

 

I can also add ability to gather an army that will respond my calling

Begging your pardon? An Army? No such thing was mentioned for this stronghold. All Tim said was security. And we have no idea what that entails.

 

 

other way for idle companions to get an extra expierience when i temporary leave them behind (they can get it when i run stronghold, i see no reason why wouldn't they have own adventures even when i don't have stronghold)

I can. Excluding companions you create via the adventurer's hall, this game's companions will have their own frontloaded/pre-defined lives within the game's story, and their own places where they live and work. Until you acquire a stronghold, and get them to move in to it, it shouldn't be up to the player to decide what they do with their own off time.

 

random attacks.

I can assure you that you will not need to own a stronghold to get random attacks against your party. Edited September 7, 2013 by Stun

[Carlo]

Outstanding stronghold implementation as described in the update.  I have not seen so many varied and well-thought-out options and features before, in any similar game.

 

The stronghold sounds like it will initially be a money sink that promises something of a reward on your investment (eventually), rather than a magic money maker.

 

Thanks for putting so much effort and thought into the events and design.  /tips hat

[igorina]

Yep, and again, if that's all you can come up with then you got nothing. The ability to take prisoners is something that absolutely SHOULD be exclusive to stronghold owners, since a stronghold is the only logical way for an adventurer to own a prison.

We have quite different view. As i said, i see other way to take prisoners (without owning a prison) - you don't. That's ok. I see other ways to upgrade combat skills (other than building a training ground), for example paying for ability to train somewhere - you will probably say that is should be reserved for stronghold. I think my companions (whatever they do in their free time) may get expierience (well maybe they sit and drink beer whole day..) - you think that they may get it only in stronghold. I respect your opinion and i am not trying to convince you to mine. I mentioned army as an idea, sth i would like to get, sth i hope hides behind "security". So i think let's drop it, cause there is no reason to argue, we have different point of view and that's all.

 

 

[Michael_Galt]

Without reading through the previous 15 pages, I must say I was pleasantly surprised by this update.  I really wasn't remotely interested in the stronghold to begin with, because I didn't want to have to play the Sims or Age of Empires.  But given how this is stated to play out, now I am sure that my first character WILL be a "paladin", who as soon as he hears about this place, will immediately see it as integral to gaining prestige for his order and for it's strategic purposes, and will begin investing heavily in it.  Or maybe I will actually try a sort of mercenary fighter character, which sees it as a way to start carving out his piece of the pie, and building a huge mercenary group that he can base out of it....  Or a wizard that wants to have a place where he can practice all manner of soul magic and not be molested...  So many options...

[BrunoBolderfist]

This is what I have been waiting for since Neverwinter, thanks soooooooo much! 

[bonarbill]

I really hope this stronghold is not a requirement for picking up prisoners.  Extra gold, exclusive items and weapons, bonus stats, and non important NPCs are fine in my opinion, but something as important as sparing NPCs' lives should be available for people who do not care about the stronghold at all.  What if I'm playing a non warmonger or a lawful type character who doesn't want a stronghold?  That wouldn't be fair exactly from a RPing point of view.

Edited September 8, 2013 by bonarbill

[Labadal]

I really hope this stronghold is not a requirement for picking up prisoners.  Optional crap, exclusive items and weapons, bonus stats, and non important NPCs are fine in my opinion, but something as important as sparing NPCs lives should be available for people who do not care about the stronghold at all.

I have no clue how this will work, but I'm guessing that we can spare the lives of some antagonists without sending them to prison. Maybe you don't fight them at all thanks to high social skills.

[Sacred_Path]

The oroblem, if you want to call it that, is that running the stronghold will be a bit of a hassle. You have to be physically present regularly, you have to fend off attacks, etc. If I don't get any exclusive content out of that, it's simply not worth it - people don't want a stronghold, they want the advantages it provides.

Exclusive is the key word here; you'll want to give stronghold owners something they can only have because they went that extra mile to take care of their stronghold. Right now it sounds like prisoners will be exclusive to those with a stronghold. More items, more stat bonuses, more NPCs and mo money aren't exclusive, they're simply more of the same.

[Sannom]

The oroblem, if you want to call it that, is that running the stronghold will be a bit of a hassle. You have to be physically present regularly, you have to fend off attacks, etc. If I don't get any exclusive content out of that, it's simply not worth it - people don't want a stronghold, they want the advantages it provides.

Actually, no. For the people who strongly wants the stronghold, the rewards that come with it are secondary to the simple break in gameplay it provides. If they were just interested in more content and its rewards, they would just ask for bigger and more numerous side-quests.

 

That's why it's optional, because there are people who really don't like that kind of gameplay in their RPG and made themselves clear about that fact in the past.

Edited September 8, 2013 by Sannom

[mcmanusaur]

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.

 

I think your problem may come down to using the term "beat the game" in reference to an RPG. For me, due to the wide range of choices (some of which are mutually exclusive) RPGs simply aren't about fostering a completionist mindset, which is the mindset you seem to take toward what constitutes an enjoyable experience. Just my two cents though.

 

However, in the spirit of fairness and making the stronghold choice interesting both ways, perhaps it would be cool if a hostile NPC took/built up the stronghold if the player chose not to (assuming that you make the decision at some particular point, rather than being able to initiate the process anytime) and there were a bunch of quests based off of besieging and raiding the NPC's stronghold instead of defending it (though this may be how you obtain it in the first place). Personally I don't see why anyone would choose repetitive stronghold-clearing quests over what's described in the OP, but hopefully that should appease the anti-stronghold crowd. And if not the only thing I can think is that they really want something fancy like a stronghold as a substitute for the stronghold...

Edited September 8, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[GrayAngel]

Great update i have just one question will the player can still make 5 new character(sorry for not finding better word) as an limit or it will be some kind of limit to make new party members let say 5:)

[Sacred_Path]

Actually, no. For the people who strongly wants the stronghold, the rewards that come with it are secondary to the simple break in gameplay it provides. If they were just interested in more content and its rewards, they would just ask for bigger and more numerous side-quests.

Nop. I'm one of those people and I don't fit your profile. I will enjoy the exclusive gameplay variants that come with the stronghold, such as the whole prisoners affair. Why should I just ask for more side quests when I can have it wrapped up in a neat package that includes a stronghold? You're implying that people just want a stronghold for LARPing reasons and as long as they get a building with high walls they'll be content. I challenge that assumption.

 

That's why it's optional, because there are people who really don't like that kind of gameplay in their RPG and made themselves clear about that fact in the past.

It's optional because it's never been a core component of IE games, so this would go directly against their pitch. However, 'optional' isn't the same as 'inconsequential', and I hope this is reflected in the way the stronghold is tied into the game. Making the stronghold optional doesn't imply that the devs agree that people who don't choose the stronghold should get the same amount of content as those who do.

[iridescence]

The oroblem, if you want to call it that, is that running the stronghold will be a bit of a hassle. You have to be physically present regularly, you have to fend off attacks, etc. If I don't get any exclusive content out of that, it's simply not worth it - people don't want a stronghold, they want the advantages it provides.

Exclusive is the key word here; you'll want to give stronghold owners something they can only have because they went that extra mile to take care of their stronghold. Right now it sounds like prisoners will be exclusive to those with a stronghold. More items, more stat bonuses, more NPCs and mo money aren't exclusive, they're simply more of the same.

 

Combat can have enjoyable gameplay but most people wouldn't do it if no loot was ever dropped. Wanting some kind of meaningful reward doesn't mean you don't enjoy a game mechanic for its own merit.

 

I don't see a problem with some exclusive encounters for people who don't want the stronghold as it is the type of thing that would also add replay value for those of us who do want it.

 

My worry, though, is the attitude of "if the stronghold people get something the non-stronghold people must always get something equally cool." This could quickly turn into a massive headache for the devs making them sorry they ever wanted to add the SH in the first place. It also divides the community and smacks of the kind of gamer entitlement that I personally loathe.

 

The stronghold is part of the game, you can not use it if you want, just like an optional dungeon or a side quest, but you have no "right" to a lot of extra content in compensation  for making that decision.

[Sacred_Path]

 

Combat can have enjoyable gameplay but most people wouldn't do it if no loot was ever dropped. Wanting some kind of meaningful reward doesn't mean you don't enjoy a game mechanic for its own merit

Exactly. The point is that "see, stronghold people get a stronghold, so they don't need anything else exclusive" is wrong because it only becomes an enjoyable experience if it's meaningful; if the stronghold is a mechanic of its own that provides more than just numerical advantages.

 

I don't see a problem with some exclusive encounters for people who don't want the stronghold as it is the type of thing that would also add replay value for those of us who do want it.

The problem as I see it is if you can get the same kind of things without a stronghold as with it, just fewer of each (fewer items, fewer quests). A stronghold, and the position that comes with it, would in reality mean all kinds of opportunities. Some of these opportunities will be simulated by taking prisoners. In reality, it IS a unique opportunity to have your own lands. Why then shouldn't it offer unique content compared to a mercenary company living on the road?

[Jarmo]

 

I don't see a problem with some exclusive encounters for people who don't want the stronghold as it is the type of thing that would also add replay value for those of us who do want it.

 

The problem as I see it is if you can get the same kind of things without a stronghold as with it, just fewer of each (fewer items, fewer quests). A stronghold, and the position that comes with it, would in reality mean all kinds of opportunities. Some of these opportunities will be simulated by taking prisoners. In reality, it IS a unique opportunity to have your own lands. Why then shouldn't it offer unique content compared to a mercenary company living on the road?

 

 

No, actually I can see the point of having something for the no-stronghold playthrough.

A few minor quests rising from the fact the player isn't managing the hold.

 

Maybe reuse the content, the ogres you'd have met and eliminated as the stronghold dude,

are now instead terrorising a small village and a band of mercenaries is required.

 

Or maybe there's a captured noble in the strongholds dungeon (maiden in the tower?) that needs rescuing?

 

Couple of minor missions is enough for the alternative history to be interesting enough.

[Sacred_Path]

No, actually I can see the point of having something for the no-stronghold playthrough. A few minor quests rising from the fact the player isn't managing the hold.

That's entirely subjective. Personally, I prefer one strong option here over two weak ones. Killing the dragon in an epic battle and taking his gold vs. letting him live and making him a quest giver, which is better and why?

 

Couple of minor missions is enough for the alternative history to be interesting enough.

The replayability of P:E in all likelihood won't hinge on the stronghold, though. Apart from that, I agree. It would make sense that you get access to a few different tasks if you're an anonymous mercenary rather than a count. I'd simply want the stronghold to be the 'strong' choice, because well, that's what makes sense.

[Jarmo]

I'd simply want the stronghold to be the 'strong' choice, because well, that's what makes sense.

 

 

That absolutely and it also depends on whether you're given a choice or if the stronghold is just dumped on you regardless.

If there is a choice, I'd rather it's not like

 

a) the right choice, you win 

b) the wrong choice, you lose

 

Because if that's the case, I'd rather there's no choice and you are plagued with the keep, like it or not.

 

Then it's about whether you maintain it properly or just ignore everything.

If it's the one, then things will happen, if it's the other, then other things should happen.

 

Like... if you tax everybody to death and don't build anything and just ignore everything,

then maybe a band of rogues could show up and ask if they can settle in, give you a share of their highway banditry income?

Or maybe a necromancer would need a base for her experiments? A dozen free zombie guardsmen for you to seal the deal.

[Messier-31]

That's entirely subjective. Personally, I prefer one strong option here over two weak ones. Killing the dragon in an epic battle and taking his gold vs. letting him live and making him a quest giver, which is better and why?

 

Why even consider siding with the dragon? Because a role-playing game means you play a role (duh). Since when all of ours unique characters have a role of dragonslayers or landlords all of a sudden? You kill every single living thing for xp or gold? That's not role-playing, that's power-gaming.

Edited September 9, 2013 by Messier-31

[Stun]

Why even consider siding with the dragon? Because a role-playing game means you play a role (duh). Since when all of ours unique characters have a role of dragonslayers or landlords all of a sudden? You kill every single living thing for xp or gold? That's not role-playing, that's power-gaming.

Powergaming and roleplaying go hand in hand in any decently designed RPG. And most fans want both in equal measure. They'll deny it, but this very thread crawls with proof.

 

A few pages ago, some people here were complaining that refusing the stronghold means they're going to be locked out of massive swaths of exclusive content, and that for some reason (fairness?) this shouldn't be. They cited Roleplaying for their argument. They flat out argued that a good RPG would give them "equal" rewards (or whatever), as a result of whichever choice they make.

 

But any TRUE role player knows that this is utter nonsense. First, there's no such thing as equality in a good RPG. Second, being denied content due to a very specific choice you made, is the NATURE of good role playing. You're suffering the consequences of your choices. Would these people prefer that there be no consequences?

 

The fact that they're complaining means their Powergaming desires are, apparently, not being met. They want to be able to reap all the exclusive benefits offered by the stronghold choice without actually having to do the stronghold.

Edited September 9, 2013 by Stun

[Sacred_Path]

Why even consider siding with the dragon? Because a role-playing game means you play a role (duh). Since when all of ours unique characters have a role of dragonslayers or landlords all of a sudden? You kill every single living thing for xp or gold? That's not role-playing, that's power-gaming.

The thing is every feeling of progression is lost if all choices are equal. On the first playthrough, it may be totally cool to roleplay and say "shove your stronghold, I'm a man of the road", knowing that you're not losing out on much content. On your second or third playthrough though, I'm sure a feeling of "man, I wish they'd made some better use of that stronghold" will come up.