Features concerns so far

[rjshae]

On-demand, unlimited re-specing is obviously silly and I'm quite sure Ob's not dumb enough to do that. OTOH having a plot point (or some similarly rare occasion) where you're allowed to do this might work just fine. 

 

As long as it involves an underground lair with an ancient machine with an eerie pink and purple glow that will suck out your soul and replace it with another... mwuhahaha...

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

If they decide to include a respec feature, they should shove it into a menu instead of trying to justify it in the game world. It is a metagame feature so treat it like one.

[PrimeJunta]

It doesn't have to be a metagame feature. @rjshae just pointed out one way it could fit just fine in a soul-based game. Other possibilities would include a sudden religious conversion (-> respec to cleric or monk), a supernatural event giving or removing magical powers (->respec to or from wizard) and so on.

 

Personally, it's not something I'd request, but if they do it and integrate it well into the game and its world, I have no objections to it either.

[Lephys]

As long as it involves an underground lair with an ancient machine with an eerie pink and purple glow that will suck out your soul and replace it with another... mwuhahaha...

I'm gonna go ahead and call that "Pinkle." Trademark pending...

[Amentep]

Works better than purpink, I think.

 

I thought re-spec was already confirmed in some form, tied to the lore (so not always available) way back in the mist of time.

[Greensleeve]

Works better than purpink, I think.

 

I thought re-spec was already confirmed in some form, tied to the lore (so not always available) way back in the mist of time.

 

As far as I can remember, yeah. I think Josh motivated it by saying that he doesn't want to make people restart the game every time they feel they've become sufficiently much better at the system mastery aspect of things. 

[Osvir]

 

On-demand, unlimited re-specing is obviously silly and I'm quite sure Ob's not dumb enough to do that. OTOH having a plot point (or some similarly rare occasion) where you're allowed to do this might work just fine. 

 

As long as it involves an underground lair with an ancient machine with an eerie pink and purple glow that will suck out your soul and replace it with another... mwuhahaha...

Or, better yet (in my opinion) something that simply sucks out your currently accumulated Soul but slowly "regenerates" as you tread along (triggered). Kind of like Arthas in the Frozen Throne but the other way around (I.E: Arthas starts at Level 10, but he loses 1 Level every mission or when triggered).

 

- You are Level 5-6 when you encounter this point in an underground lair.

- You sell your soul, get back to Level 1 [insert Class].

- As you move along the underground lair towards the exit, you get 1 or 2 Levels every now and then when triggered. Expect to be challenged.

- Serves the A narrative rather than only acting as a "re-specialize game button".

 

- Make it a choice/Add flavor:

A) Sacrifice your Wizard Soul so you can fill it with a Fighter Soul (or whatever~). Component for a "later" Summoning Ritual* Gets a bad (necromancy) reputation.

B) Use the "Machine" to call back a lost companion's Soul. Breaks the "Machine" and summons a powerful side-boss enemy.

C) Destroy the "Machine". Gain good reputation, finish a Quest and some gear reward.

D) Leave it alone. Late game consequence (the powerful side-boss enemy appears during some fight~ maybe an intelligent and calculative mid-boss calls it to his/her aid).

 

* You could always sacrifice your Wizard Soul and "respec" into Wizard again if you enjoy the Class, right?

 

Reputation/Quest~ Examples examples:

A) Does not finish Quest for one Faction and gets bad rep because Necromancy.

B) Finishes Quest but gets bad rep because Necromancy.

C) Finish Quest Optimally as "Ordered".

D) Does not Finish Quest, neutral rep.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

I do enjoy combat in video games, but I also have a need to play smart.  To me if these two things are conflicted than I find that to be a poor design decision.  I guess it all depends on how they do things but in other games where they award set ammounts of exp at the end of a mission I have found it to be an unenjoyable aspect in them.

 

Excellent point. I like (role)playing a character who's doing things the smart way and avoids combat if it's the optimal thing to do, even though as a player I really enjoy combat. 

The character needs the incentive (in the form of XP), not the player. 

 

Wait what?

 

I mean, this is literally the stupidest thing I've ever heard in this context. I can feel my IQ drop by just repeating this sentence, nay, by looking at it.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

I do enjoy combat in video games, but I also have a need to play smart.  To me if these two things are conflicted than I find that to be a poor design decision.  I guess it all depends on how they do things but in other games where they award set ammounts of exp at the end of a mission I have found it to be an unenjoyable aspect in them.

 

Excellent point. I like (role)playing a character who's doing things the smart way and avoids combat if it's the optimal thing to do, even though as a player I really enjoy combat. 

The character needs the incentive (in the form of XP), not the player. 

 

 

Wait what?

 

I mean, this is literally the stupidest thing I've ever heard in this context. I can feel my IQ drop by just repeating this sentence, nay, by looking at it.

 

I'm wondering how the character knows that by killing something, he will gain a certain amount of XP and have a boost to all of his abilities my self.

[Failion]

Storm of zehir map traveling was fun but there is nothing wrong with baldurs gate map system. I think the perfect balance would be mixing the two between baldurs gate 1 and 2. Have many maps like baldurs gate 1 but organize them so they are not clustered as baldurs gate 1 so no bandit forest 1,2,3 etc. Some old jrpgs I know had exceptional world map design like legend of mana where the player actually places them in the world determines what mobs spawn in the areas. They also had way more reactivity then baldurs gate 1 for sure where you would just kill everything in the zone and leave. Baldurs gate 2 bioware did great when it came to revisiting areas there were new things to do.

[Lephys]

@Osvir:

 

I'm gonna throw this on top of the pile...

 

Amnesia. You either work to regain your lost memories (and reclaim your class/build), or you build new ones. 8P

 

SOUL AMNESIA!

 

(I'm only half serious. I started at full-joke, then realized "This could technically work, in the hands of a much more skilled writer/dreamweaver than I...")

[Amentep]

 

 

 

I do enjoy combat in video games, but I also have a need to play smart.  To me if these two things are conflicted than I find that to be a poor design decision.  I guess it all depends on how they do things but in other games where they award set ammounts of exp at the end of a mission I have found it to be an unenjoyable aspect in them.

 

Excellent point. I like (role)playing a character who's doing things the smart way and avoids combat if it's the optimal thing to do, even though as a player I really enjoy combat. 

The character needs the incentive (in the form of XP), not the player. 

 

 

Wait what?

 

I mean, this is literally the stupidest thing I've ever heard in this context. I can feel my IQ drop by just repeating this sentence, nay, by looking at it.

 

I'm wondering how the character knows that by killing something, he will gain a certain amount of XP and have a boost to all of his abilities my self.

 

 

He bought the monster manual.

[Tauron]

I have been superficialy going through this thread and mention of how healing works picked my intrest. I wasnt aware that only through rest one could heal. I think there are several layers of injured and than incapacited. Some sort of treating wounds is nescessery...whatever you have heared people, time does not heal all wounds. Death heals all wounds hehe. So some sort of either potion to speed ones recovery or characters should have some sort of healing abilities.(with a twist yes)

 

I am currently on my third book of A Tale of The Malazan Book of the Fallen. In this world/universe, certain mages depending on their "warren" , a place where they draw magical energies from and aspect of that warren can heal. The best of these is Denul warren. So these mages who's focus is Denul can 'force heal'. In the setting it is very traumatic and painfull experience. Not many even want it unless their life depends on it. So while characters can be saved from certain death inbeatwean combat or during combat it comes with a cost and certain penelties. And acually only rest (time) can kind of heal that.

[Valorian]

 

 

I do enjoy combat in video games, but I also have a need to play smart.  To me if these two things are conflicted than I find that to be a poor design decision.  I guess it all depends on how they do things but in other games where they award set ammounts of exp at the end of a mission I have found it to be an unenjoyable aspect in them.

 

Excellent point. I like (role)playing a character who's doing things the smart way and avoids combat if it's the optimal thing to do, even though as a player I really enjoy combat. 

The character needs the incentive (in the form of XP), not the player. 

 

Wait what?

 

I mean, this is literally the stupidest thing I've ever heard in this context. I can feel my IQ drop by just repeating this sentence, nay, by looking at it.

 

 

First, no, your IQ hasn't dropped even by a single point, because if it had -- you wouldn't be able to turn on your computer anymore. So don't blame your IQ stat on me.

 

I had a slight feeling that someone who had his Intellect attribute score neglected at character creation would eventually turn up and waste no time to let it be known he didn't comprehend the sentence. Now on to the point.

 

The character doesn't know there's an XP bar ticking, no.

However, the character does notice, assuming average or above average cognitive skills, that there's a direct link between defeating a foe in combat and gradually becoming better at combat.

People often roleplay someone who is to some degree similar to them, so I'm not surprised your character would be oblivious to this connection.

 

 

Speaking of attributes:

 

 

J.E. Sawyer wrote on Something Awful:

Some people aren't fans of our overall Attribute design, which I've focused on always providing benefits to characters of any class even if that means the Attributes aren't very realistic. If you want to make a Strength-based rogue, that's viable. So is a Strength-based wizard, an Intellect-based barbarian, etc.

 

A strength-based wizard would get the benefit of becoming better with weapons and dramatically enhancing the gish aspect, no? Do you fell that's not enough? The synergy between strong melee capabilities and spells like fire shield or mirror image is tremendous.

 

If you feel that's not enough. Would it perhaps be better for the damage stat to have a different effect on spellcasting without directly increasing damage? For instance, strength could lower the action speed penalty for armor (everyone would benefit from this), but wouldn't increase action speed otherwise. Of course, for balancing reasons, lowering the damage bonus for weapons would be a side effect of this change.

 

On the other hand, Intellect could believably affect damage for both spells and weapons, and Strength would be the attribute that affects damage dealt with weapons.

 

Similarly, the accuracy attribute could increase accuracy with weapons and certain spells. For example, accuracy with targeted AoE spells, but not the accuracy of a spell that affects the enemy's psyche.

 

This way there'd still be a substantial benefit with a focus shift, without smashing believability with a sledgehammer.

[anubite]

Here's why respeccing is stupid:

 

1. It lets you change from being an Archer to being a Mage at the drop of a hat. How does this make sense in our game world? Does this mean a Chef can become a Physicist if he pays some gold to some guy? If it doesn't let us change classes, at the very least, it lets us change what we're "good at" - which is still difficult to explain in a 'normal' context, it needs to be a special feature of the story to explain, it can't just be some trivial thing that everybody can just do.

2. It lets you game the system. I think we like 'gaming' the system, but we don't like gaming the gaming system - a sense of metagame where we decide that archers are good in the early game and mages in the lategame. If classes are balanced to have power curves or bumps in the road over the journey of the game, players should be forced to experience them, otherwise they're depriving challenge. This is negative because it reinforces negative player behavior. The name of the game is roleplaying, if you redefine your role 50% through the game - what the ****? Why play a roleplaying game?

3. It lessens the impact of choice. If you make a bad choice you should live with it.  If no choices are bad why are we playing a game? Let's go watch a movie.

 

You could canonize a feature in the form of a soul sucking machine and I could tolerate that **** if it set you back experience and gold and took a long ass quest - but I'd rather content generation time be spent everywhere.

 

If the game is so poorly balanced there needs to be a respec feature... we have bigger problems than a respec feature.

 

How many times did you restart Fallout 1 before you beat the game for the first time? I think it was twenty or more for me. It's the sign of a good game for me.

 

If you don't enjoy restarting, if you frequently make bad character choices, if the game isn't designed well to make starting over easy and fun - then there's a problem. But it's not a problem of being able to press a button and receive a new character halfway through the game, which is what is meant by the term respec - a term created by EQ and WoW - a feature that 'streamlines' (aka dumbs down) RPG gameplay because developers believe players can't make good choices, that players can't tolerate their own choices, that they can't design systems that are balanced. A respec button is a sign of weakness, an uncertainty on the part of the developer, and a greedy wish from the players of the game. Diablo 3 was designed around the use of a respec button and suffers for it. There is no reason for any good RPG to have one.

Edited September 19, 2013 by anubite

[Lephys]

The character doesn't know there's an XP bar ticking, no.

However, the character does notice, assuming average or above average cognitive skills, that there's a direct link between defeating a foe in combat and gradually becoming better at combat.

Which would constitute a need, IF there weren't alternatives (such as training), and if there weren't weighty risk factors (such as possible death).

 

A character recognizes the need to improve, not the need to cause the death of all combattable things in sight, simply because improvement.

[Stun]

On the other hand, Intellect could believably affect damage for both spells and weapons, and Strength would be the attribute that affects damage dealt with weapons.

So... strength and intelligence would affect weapon damage?

 

I don't know. I can understand if a high intelligence Barbarian gains a better understanding of an opponent's anatomy, thus he receives bonusses to damage/criticals, but that's simply the definition of accuracy. So, basically, intelligence here is taking the place of Dexterity, rather than strength. When it comes to the subject of weapons, Strength is Brute force. Dexterity is accuracy. So what's intelligence in this equation? Do we have a situation where the Barbarian is so smart that his blows have more force behind them? Or is he so smart that his blows are more accurate (ie. he was keen enough to aim for the vitals)?

 

Personally I'm fine with either one, so long as there's some sort of believable explanation instead of just: "well, we wanted intelligence to be more useful!". We've all asked for No-More-Dump-Stats, but IMO the solution isn't to double up and have 2 different stats do the exact same thing. Because that just seems like.... Lazy Design.

 

If you ask me, though, I think Intelligence should have an indirect effect on weapon damage. The smart barbarian should be able to master more weapon types/styles. He should be able to make better use of poisons and other types of weapon coatings. Stuff like that.

Edited September 20, 2013 by Stun

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

The character doesn't know there's an XP bar ticking, no.

However, the character does notice, assuming average or above average cognitive skills, that there's a direct link between defeating a foe in combat and gradually becoming better at combat.

People often roleplay someone who is to some degree similar to them, so I'm not surprised your character would be oblivious to this connection.

Seeing as in PE there is no "direct link between defeating a foe in combat and gradually becoming better at combat", your hypothetical character would be wrong.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

I'm wondering how the character knows that by killing something, he will gain a certain amount of XP and have a boost to all of his abilities my self.

 

 

Or you could have a pacifist that has avoided combat all game and not used any weapons, but is just as powerful and skilled with their weapons as another character who has fought their way through the game.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

I'm wondering how the character knows that by killing something, he will gain a certain amount of XP and have a boost to all of his abilities my self.

 

Or you could have a pacifist that has avoided combat all game and not used any weapons, but is just as powerful and skilled with their weapons as another character who has fought their way through the game.

 

Judging from what we know about PE's leveling system, I don't see a problem with that.

[Iucounu]

The attribute-set is quite decent imo. Instead of inventing crazy formulas with dexterity, strength, speed, cunning and whatnot to determine your accuracy, you're just making accuracy an attribute for itself, and be good with it.

In the end, no simulatist approach with just a couple of numbers will ever be fully convincing anyway, so you might aswell come up with your own reasons, why you're so devastating, accurate, tough, etc. 

 

Not saying that I generally prefer such an approach, but it's kind of a refreshing change. If I'll really like it in the game, remains to be seen. 

[AGX-17]

The simplest solution is usually the best solution. More stats and more complexity can be fun, but they can also be a nightmare depending on who's designing the system.

 

 

I am concerned that the game will not have rain effects and farm animals.

I thought that was a joke, but actually, rain's kind of a big deal. Then again, I'm pretty sure it's already in (how hard is it to make a 2D rain overlay?)

Edited September 20, 2013 by AGX-17

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

I do enjoy combat in video games, but I also have a need to play smart.  To me if these two things are conflicted than I find that to be a poor design decision.  I guess it all depends on how they do things but in other games where they award set ammounts of exp at the end of a mission I have found it to be an unenjoyable aspect in them.

 

Excellent point. I like (role)playing a character who's doing things the smart way and avoids combat if it's the optimal thing to do, even though as a player I really enjoy combat. 

The character needs the incentive (in the form of XP), not the player. 

 

Wait what?

 

I mean, this is literally the stupidest thing I've ever heard in this context. I can feel my IQ drop by just repeating this sentence, nay, by looking at it.

 

 

First, no, your IQ hasn't dropped even by a single point, because if it had -- you wouldn't be able to turn on your computer anymore. So don't blame your IQ stat on me.

 

I had a slight feeling that someone who had his Intellect attribute score neglected at character creation would eventually turn up and waste no time to let it be known he didn't comprehend the sentence. Now on to the point.

 

The character doesn't know there's an XP bar ticking, no.

However, the character does notice, assuming average or above average cognitive skills, that there's a direct link between defeating a foe in combat and gradually becoming better at combat.

People often roleplay someone who is to some degree similar to them, so I'm not surprised your character would be oblivious to this connection.

 

 

You're so wrong on so many levels I just don't have the willpower to even start making a list why your argument doesn't make any sense. I just... look at it... realize that you are an arrogant **** who is so entrenched in his own ignorance he doesn't even see how ridiculously dated his viewpoint is (I mean seriously, have you ever seen an RPG system aside from AD&D, which, I might add, is more than 30 years old?), then think about the walls of texts necessary to even begin starting to explain to you why that horrible mess of rules has simply no place in anywhere but tabletop (and even then, totally unworthy of being treated like the Holy Grail of RPG systems), and this... seemingly endless ocean of ennui just washes over me, seeing the futility of this task, and I feel there is nothing I can do, because you're not only ignorant as ****, but also totally convinced that you're right and everybody else is not only wrong, but so deep beneath you they aren't even worth listening to.

 

I call this "The Valorian Effect".

 

Well, back to the ignore list, m'boy.

[Gfted1]

Stomping your foot and slamming the door on the way out is fine, but again, everyone please focus their replies on the thread topics and not the posters.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Stomping your foot and slamming the door on the way out is fine, but again, everyone please focus their replies on the thread topics and not the posters.

 

Normally I would, but it's not worth my time and energy to compile pages-long posts about things that really should be obvious to anyone who even tries to talk about RPG design in any meaningful kind of way. Life is unfair, have a cookie.