The bad things about Project Eternity...

[SophosTheWise]

@Sacred_Path:

 

Do you not care about building good characters or do you only care if others judge them? Mebbe make up your mind.

 

 

I don't really care about a "good character" beyond myself enjoying playing said character. This is maybe a bit simplistic but that's my basis for having fun. I don't really care if my character is built clever enough to give 0.1 points more DPS. I mean if I happen to clevery create a character, that's cool. But it's not one of my core-experiences with a game. 
Or in an analogy: I find chemistry interesting but I don't need to be able to know exactly how many valence electrons every atom has. It's cool to have an intricate system, but nothing more.

 

Also, I'm really not a competitive gamer, so I don't care about people comparing their builds and getting a virtual hard-on. It's just nothing I gain from. But I can understand that building strong characters can be fun. 

 

 

Personally, I care about the time I've invested in a game. There's also something very satisfying when you see that digging into the game has made you become better at the game, rather than systems that accomodate everyone equally from the get go.

 

 

I can understand that, and I can also relate. But I think the system where you cannot build a bad build doesn't automatically mean that it accomodates everyone equally from the get go. You can't build a weak build, yes, but you can always build an even stronger build. Of course that's only my gut, I have no evidence on that. But that's also the feeling I got from D&D next and 4e. 

[Stun]

 

I'm red-green color blind so making the selection circles something else is just fine by me ... and I honestly have no idea how blue is immershun breaking whilst green or red somehow enhance "immershun"

It's pretty simple. I want them to be the same as the IE games, simple as that.

 

That's not really answering his question. "Immersion" in a video game is that feeling you get when the game sucks you into its world. When your attention is fully on what's going on -be it during combat, or exploration, or dialogue. Saying "because I like the way Baldurs Gate had green circles under my characters" does not explain why Blue circles will suddenly break your attention span. Or to put it another way, if the color of the circles under your characters is breaking your immersion, then the game is probably failing in other ways and you're not even realizing it.

 

Me personally, I can't think of a more trivial issue than the colors of the sprites lol. Incidently, A couple of the IE games (IWD2, PS:T) allowed you to play with them turned off, ie. no circles at all! And the others allowed you to adjust their size and brightness so that they were barely even visible.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Stun

[teknoman2]

 

Did you? "An attribute system that's failproof just isn't my cup of tea."

 

Failproof means failing is not allowed. Meaning if you want to be the most accurate mofo in the land, you can just close your eyes, and allocate all your points into random attributes (because you can't fail!)

"This game doesn't have easy combat! If I close my eyes it's actually getting challenging!"

 

Character creation will be failproof insofar as you can't create a gimped character. To me, that's a downside. Another effect and another downside of this is that a complete noob can probably build a tank that's as effective as that built by a 100+ hours veteran. We have heard enough about the design philosophy here that we can even assume that, if Dex and Con are completely defensive attributes, a character specializing in Dex will be just as survivable as one specializing in Con. That seems to be what they're going for.

 

This is assuming that even that noob does RTFM and possesses basic reading comprehension.

 

the way i understand this, is that they will use a progression similar to that of DnD for the skills.

 

the following is purelly hypothetical

 

a ranger at lv1 has melee 1, ranged 5, survival 3, stealing 1.

at lv2 he has melee 1, ranged 6, survival 4, stealing 1 and 2 points to use. he puts them to melee

at lv3 he has melee 4, ranged 7, survival 5, stealing 2 and puts the 2 points to melee

at lv4 he has melee 6, ranged 8, survival 6, stealing 2...

at lv10 he has melee 21, ranged 14, survival 12, stealing 5, as oposed to a fighter with melee focus that has melee 32, meaning he spent all the points in melee, but cant go toe to toe with a proper melee character, however he can still use a bow even if not as effectivelly as he would like

 

so the system is not letting the character become completelly useless on his intended function if you spend random points, however the character will certainly not have the same power as a properly built one

[motorizer]

 

 

I'm red-green color blind so making the selection circles something else is just fine by me ... and I honestly have no idea how blue is immershun breaking whilst green or red somehow enhance "immershun"

It's pretty simple. I want them to be the same as the IE games, simple as that.

 

That's not really answering his question. "Immersion" in a video game is that feeling you get when the game sucks you into its world. When your attention is fully on what's going on -be it during combat, or exploration, or dialogue. Saying "because I like the way Baldurs Gate had green circles under my characters" does not explain why Blue circles will suddenly break your attention span. Or to put it another way, if the color of the circles under your characters is breaking your immersion, then the game is probably failing in other ways and you're not even realizing it.

 

Me personally, I can't think of a more trivial issue than the colors of the sprites lol. Incidently, A couple of the IE games (IWD2, PS:T) allowed you to play with them turned off, ie. no circles at all! And the others allowed you to adjust their size and brightness so that they were barely even visible.

 

I hope you are able to turn them off, I always did in the old games, I don't think they are necessary and the less UI the better for me.

[Sacred_Path]

there will not be a melee skill. So, a character's melee viability will be pretty much set in stone as per his class, with minor adjustments due to equipment and attributes. That's how I understand it, at least.

[AGX-17]

I haven't played the game, so of course my many complaints about a game whose systems I know next to nothing about are extremely legitimate. Also I'm offended by certain colors which other people can't see.

 

Addendum:

 

Waaaaaaaaah!

 

Post-script:

 

ABLOOBLOOBLOO!!

 

 

Does anyone have one of Obsidian's undoubtedly garbage design docs I can wipe my snot-covered face with?

Edited October 22, 2013 by AGX-17

[Sacred_Path]

I haven't played the game, so of course my many complaints about a game whose systems I know next to nothing about are extremely legitimate.

Actually you can only post in a thread like this if your legitimacy is over 9000

[Lephys]

Character creation will be failproof insofar as you can't create a gimped character. To me, that's a downside. Another effect and another downside of this is that a complete noob can probably build a tank that's as effective as that built by a 100+ hours veteran. We have heard enough about the design philosophy here that we can even assume that, if Dex and Con are completely defensive attributes, a character specializing in Dex will be just as survivable as one specializing in Con. That seems to be what they're going for.

Are you suggesting that somehow the survivability of high DEX and the survivability of high CON will be identical in effect? Like, if you have 18 of either one, you'll just stand there and survive hits in all the exact same situations? And if not, how is this a flaw? How is ANY difference in build not simply an alternative to something else?

 

"I can't always fight the hostiles as well, but sometimes I can talk my way around the situation, making the fight easier by luring certain ones away or splitting them up, etc."

 

"I'm really good at fighting, but I don't have good Charisma and Intelligence, etc., so I can't really gather info very well or utilize that to score advantages in situations."

 

"I can do lots of damage from a range, but if they get close to me, I die quickly."

 

"I do lots of AOE damage, but I can't take on single targets as effectively."

 

That's the very nature of character creation point-allocation limits. There are X things, and you can only take X - N of them, whatever the combination. Essentially, for every point of betterment in ONE aspect you lose, you gain a point of betterment in another.

 

The ONLY thing different about the idea behind P:E's attribute system as opposed to many existing ones is that they've tried to get rid of the things that don't really fit that equation very well. They don't want dropping one stat to 3 to result in significantly LESS of a loss than the gain of raising another stat to 18 (using DnD numbers for example). I don't see what's wrong with making sure a 3 point loss in one stat is as equally potentially significant as possible to a 3 point loss in any other stat. As opposed to "Oh, you're a Wizard? Well, you can either take Strength, and carry more, and still suck with melee weaponry compared to everyone else in existence, or you can take Intelligence, and... you know... not be denied most of your best Wizard-only abilities. Hmmmm... which will you choose?!"

 

Basically, they're just trying to remove hard class ties to stats. You still have variation. You can still make a gimped character, if you really want, I'm sure. What I should say is, they haven't yet said that you can't. If you're not allowed to have random dice-roll values to make a character (allowing for a fluctuation in the total stat points you're dealing with), then you won't be able to make a gimped character. Otherwise, you will. That has nothing to do with whether or not each stat is significant in its own aspect or not. If you build a Fighter with low Dex (or whatever determines accuracy) and Strength (or whatever determines power), guess what? Gimped character. He'll probably be pretty good at other things. Maybe he'll even get some cool tactical bonuses because of Intelligence or some such, and/or he'll be really clever and apt at persuasion and situation-handling. He'll still be able to deal damage and slay things, but he won't be a powerhouse. And if a Wizard takes low Power (or whatever it'll be), HE'LL be the same way, with respect to his own class abilities. That's the only difference.

 

A single stat will now affect the potency of both classes, instead of one affecting the potency of one class and doing zilch for another (for the class... not the character).

 

Aside from that, we're waiting on the actual details. But, the intent they expressed was merely to have a more streamlined stat system, so that it's POSSIBLE to actually utilize various stats with any given class without simply pretending you're not a completely infeasible character at that point.

 

So no, I don't comprehend all the "Oh no! It's failproof!" hullaballoo. It's not failproof. At least, not by its general design. Again, they could have 6 stats, that each max out at 10 points, and give us 50 points to allocate. So, then, it would be pretty failproof. But, that's true of any system. They could also give us 5 points, and then we'd always suck, no matter what. But, that's called nonsensical design, and I like to think the dev team is competent.

[Sensuki]

That's not really answering his question.

If the circles aren't green it won't feel as much like an IE game.

[Aoyagi]

Needs more Deekin.

[Sacred_Path]

 

Character creation will be failproof insofar as you can't create a gimped character. To me, that's a downside. Another effect and another downside of this is that a complete noob can probably build a tank that's as effective as that built by a 100+ hours veteran. We have heard enough about the design philosophy here that we can even assume that, if Dex and Con are completely defensive attributes, a character specializing in Dex will be just as survivable as one specializing in Con. That seems to be what they're going for.

 

 

Are you suggesting that somehow the survivability of high DEX and the survivability of high CON will be identical in effect? Like, if you have 18 of either one, you'll just stand there and survive hits in all the exact same situations?

 

 

No, and I don't believe that you're stupid enough to misunderstand my post.

 

 

And if not, how is this a flaw? How is ANY difference in build not simply an alternative to something else?

 

Why would you have two attributes in a game that accomplish the exact same thing? If for example the output of magical and physical damage by enemies is about the same, and two attributes reduce their respective damage type by the same amount, that would seem silly, no? That seems to be their design philsophy though.

Edited October 23, 2013 by Sacred_Path

[mur'phon]

To use your example, let's say I make a rogue (and I'm making some assumptions here, but you get the idea). I give him high (stat that reduce chance to hit of physical attacks), skip the one that deals with magic resistance, give him a nice talent that makes him a bit resistant against mental attacks, and arm with him two daggers.

This rogue is not going to be great in most parties. His daggers makes him a poor fit against armored foes, and his high phusical resistance is unlikely to be that usefull if you have a defencive fighter, going after mages is risky with his low magic defence. Now this guy isn't anywhere near as useless as an 18 charisma fighter in NWN, and making him probably won't make you unable to finish the game. Still, a good player would almost certainly come up with something better.

[Sacred_Path]

This rogue is not going to be great in most parties. His daggers makes him a poor fit against armored foes

weaponry can be changed on the fly, so that's a poor/ wrong example

 

and his high phusical resistance is unlikely to be that usefull if you have a defencive fighter,

Even assuming that this is true, again, even a noob at the game can imagine that having a party with 6 high defense tank is a bit of a waste.

 

going after mages is risky with his low magic defence.

Which may easily be offset by the rogue's ability to turn invisible for a short time (to get close), then the mage may be in a world of hurt considering his low armor and the rogue's high DPS output

[mur'phon]

weaponry can be changed on the fly, so that's a poor/ wrong example

You only have two slots, the other one could be a ranged weapon for when things get hairy, and the rogue might be specialized in daggers.

 

Even assuming that this is true, again, even a noob at the game can imagine that having a party with 6 high defense tank is a bit of a waste

 

Only a noob would make a fighter with 18 cha in NWN as well, however, we were all once noobs, and thus making the diference betwen a bad and good character smaller a good thing IMO, as long as you can still make builds that are different.

 

Which may easily be offset by the rogue's ability to turn invisible for a short time (to get close), then the mage may be in a world of hurt considering his low armor and the rogue's high DPS output

Which may easily be offsett by the mage's grimorie slam. In addition, this assumes the rogue has invested in stealth instead of say traps and poison.

 

The general point still stands though, you can make an inferior character, the only big diference is that the interwall between best and worst is smaller. Also, even if two character builds are about equally good on paper, depending on your playstyle, the companions you bring, the items you find etc they could wary quite a bit in effectivness.

 

 

[teknoman2]

 

 

Character creation will be failproof insofar as you can't create a gimped character. To me, that's a downside. Another effect and another downside of this is that a complete noob can probably build a tank that's as effective as that built by a 100+ hours veteran. We have heard enough about the design philosophy here that we can even assume that, if Dex and Con are completely defensive attributes, a character specializing in Dex will be just as survivable as one specializing in Con. That seems to be what they're going for.

 

 

Are you suggesting that somehow the survivability of high DEX and the survivability of high CON will be identical in effect? Like, if you have 18 of either one, you'll just stand there and survive hits in all the exact same situations?

 

 

No, and I don't believe that you're stupid enough to misunderstand my post.

 

 

And if not, how is this a flaw? How is ANY difference in build not simply an alternative to something else?

 

Why would you have two attributes in a game that accomplish the exact same thing? If for example the output of magical and physical damage by enemies is about the same, and two attributes reduce their respective damage type by the same amount, that would seem silly, no? That seems to be their design philsophy though.

 

so you are saying that if i throw a knife that does piercing damage (i need strength and dexterity to hit accuratelly) and a molotov that does fire damage (takes strength and dexterity to hit accuratelly), a kevlar vest that would completelly nullify the damage of the knife, should do the same to the fire, because both attacks require the same stats to use?

[Sacred_Path]

 

weaponry can be changed on the fly, so that's a poor/ wrong example

You only have two slots, the other one could be a ranged weapon for when things get hairy, and the rogue might be specialized in daggers.

 

Inventories will with absolute certainty be large enough to accomodate several weapons. Be sure of that. Also, while you can specialize in certain weapons, that doesn't change anything, as there are only two possibilites:

 

1) you do more damage with a heavier weapon even if you're not specialized in them

 

2) The specialization damage bonuses are large enough to overcome the fact that they're not ideal against this armor

 

 

Only a noob would make a fighter with 18 cha in NWN as well, however, we were all once noobs

 

Irrelevant. I don't enjoy it more just because I am one of the noobs. I don't want crutches.

 

 

Which may easily be offset by the rogue's ability to turn invisible for a short time (to get close), then the mage may be in a world of hurt considering his low armor and the rogue's high DPS output

Which may easily be offsett by the mage's grimorie slam. In addition, this assumes the rogue has invested in stealth instead of say traps and poison.

 

No, maybe check the updates. Turning invisible is an ability of rogues, i.e. they get it automatically. No need to specialize or neglect other skills.

 

The general point still stands though, you can make an inferior character

No you can't, at least not attribute wise. You can play that character like a retard of course, but that's not the issue here.

Edited October 23, 2013 by Sacred_Path

[Sacred_Path]

so you are saying that if i throw a knife that does piercing damage (i need strength and dexterity to hit accuratelly) and a molotov that does fire damage (takes strength and dexterity to hit accuratelly), a kevlar vest that would completelly nullify the damage of the knife, should do the same to the fire, because both attacks require the same stats to use?

Wut?

 

If "kevlar vest" was a stat, or a defense boosted by a stat, you could almost be sure that the damage you have received (i.e. the knife damage) would have also been blocked if you had invested your points in another stat that would have protected you from the fire damage.

[Gfted1]

Isnt "accuracy" its own stat?

[Tale]

How about that fulfillment site?

 

I'm not in a position to say anything negative of the game. Too ignorant to judge mechanics. But up to the end there I was hoping for a more exotic setting. So I guess that's one thing I'm less than 100% behind.

[Lephys]

Why would you have two attributes in a game that accomplish the exact same thing? If for example the output of magical and physical damage by enemies is about the same, and two attributes reduce their respective damage type by the same amount, that would seem silly, no? That seems to be their design philsophy though.

... I'm sorry? Come again? Could you please point toward some evidence that their intention is to have two attributes that perform the same function? If anything, I'd say it was the opposite, and would expect legitimate concerns to be of the oversimplification of it. Yet you seem to actually be saying that they're going to overly redundantize the system? Just double all the attributes as compared to typical stat systems?

 

I really, truly would appreciate elaboration here. I'm just missing what you're getting at.

[Sacred_Path]

 

Why would you have two attributes in a game that accomplish the exact same thing? If for example the output of magical and physical damage by enemies is about the same, and two attributes reduce their respective damage type by the same amount, that would seem silly, no? That seems to be their design philsophy though.

 

 

... I'm sorry? Come again? Could you please point toward some evidence that their intention is to have two attributes that perform the same function?

 

 

I am sorry, I didn't say they perform the exact same function, did I? They would both be defensive stats and each would protect from a different form of damage. What I just can't see though is Josh saying "hmm, Willpower protects you from magical spells, but there will definitely be a lot less damage caused by spells than by weapons. That's ok though, if an experienced player has a specific enemy or strategy in mind when he creates a high Willpower character, let him do that." He would try to make Willpower equally as useful as, say, Dexterity, for damage avoiding purposes.

 

practical example: I'm going to make a party that has 4 fighters in it, with all the health and deflection bonuses that come with it. So, physical damage distributed between these 4 won't be much of a problem. They're also carrying high DPS weaponry and are somewhat tweaked towards dealing damage, so putting out reasonable physical damage isn't a problem either. But let's say that particularly powerful spellcasters could be a serious problem. That's where the high Willpower rogue would come in.

Edited October 23, 2013 by Sacred_Path

[Labadal]

Not a bad thing, but I'm not sure if I'll enjoy the stamina/health mechanic.

 

George Ziets is no longer working on the game.

[GhoulishVisage]

Alright, so I've already said a few of these in that other thread, but I'll repeat them since this thread is specifically about complaints.
Also, personal opinions ahead:

-Elves.
So we got a whole new world, one in which we could have any number of new and exciting things and we got... elves.
For some reason I don't mind dwarves so much as I do elves, despite them being just as broadly used as bloody elves. They just don't feel as creatively stagnant. Also the Sagani piece is still my favourite bit of PE art.
Thank gods they at least don't have bloody orcs.

-Weird races aren't really weird.
When Sawyer said "weird" I was expecting a bit more... weird. The Orlans and Aumaua have since grown on me and I'm really looking forward to learning more about them, particularly the Aumaua, but I still wish there was just one really out-there race.
We could always get rid of the elves to make room for a more interesting race.

-Little PS:T influence from what we've seen
So this one's a bit more hazy, as details of what's actually going to be going on in the game-world are relatively scarce.
We've seen a whole lotta Baldur's Gate, but no Planescape.
PE claims to be drawing influence from all of the IE games, but the surreal weirdness of PS:T seems to be missing from the monster and world design that we've seen so far.

A pity since Baldur's Gate and Sword Coast are actually fairly boring settings that have been spiced up by the content of the games they appear in.

Other than that I really love what I've seen.

The cultures look and sound interesting, the lore sounds intriguing, the stronghold is really exciting and the PE updates are a highlight of my week.

Edited October 23, 2013 by GhoulishVisage

[teknoman2]

 

so you are saying that if i throw a knife that does piercing damage (i need strength and dexterity to hit accuratelly) and a molotov that does fire damage (takes strength and dexterity to hit accuratelly), a kevlar vest that would completelly nullify the damage of the knife, should do the same to the fire, because both attacks require the same stats to use?

Wut?

 

If "kevlar vest" was a stat, or a defense boosted by a stat, you could almost be sure that the damage you have received (i.e. the knife damage) would have also been blocked if you had invested your points in another stat that would have protected you from the fire damage.

 

that my friend is sophistry.

first you accuse the game of being silly because the statement: "if the X stat is responsible for 2 different types of attacks then the same defence stat should counter both (even if one is magical and the other physical)", is not true, and now you accuse the game of having this statement as true. make up your mind or go troll somewhere else

[Messier-31]

-Elves.

So we got a whole new world, one in which we could have any number of new and exciting things and we got... elves.

For some reason I don't mind dwarves so much as I do elves, despite them being just as broadly used as bloody elves. They just don't feel as creatively stagnant. Also the Sagani piece is still my favourite bit of PE art.

Thank gods they at least don't have bloody orcs.

 

-Weird races aren't really weird.

Alright, I've said this before, but when Sawyer said "weird" I was expecting a bit more... weird. The Orlans and Aumaua have since grown on me and I'm really looking forward to learning more about them, particularly the Aumaua, but I still wish there was just one really out-there race.

We could always get rid of the elves to make room for a more interesting race.

 

I know it's a matter of opinion, buuuuuuuuut thankfully elves are here to stay You already have a bunch of new races: godlike, orlan and aumanabananarama. Just give it a go.