Jump to content
  • Sign Up
SophosTheWise

The bad things about Project Eternity...

Recommended Posts

Hi all

 

First post here :)

 

Most of what I have heard abut PE has got me really excited. (To be fair we are starved for games like this)

 

I think the only thing I frowned a bit at were the amount of beginning classes. (6 I think it was) 

 

I would far rather have 20 classes all differing ot varying degrees than just 6. It's better than recent offerings which usually give the standard "Wizard, Warrior or Rogue" options. But I still think 6 is a little stingy.

 

Everything else looks fine to great to me.

 

Just my thoughts :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's a scenario. You're "adventuring" and you come across 2 piles. The 1st one has a bunch of plain old non-magical equipment, while the 2nd one has a bunch of unique-looking magical equipment. 99 out of 100 gamers will walk right past pile 1 to get to pile 2.

 

I would go back for the first pile, after I sold the second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

 

First post here :)

 

Most of what I have heard abut PE has got me really excited. (To be fair we are starved for games like this)

 

I think the only thing I frowned a bit at were the amount of beginning classes. (6 I think it was) 

 

I would far rather have 20 classes all differing ot varying degrees than just 6. It's better than recent offerings which usually give the standard "Wizard, Warrior or Rogue" options. But I still think 6 is a little stingy.

 

Everything else looks fine to great to me.

 

Just my thoughts :)

There's 11 classes. And be thankful. We had to fight hard during the kickstarter to get that many. Most of them were stretch goals. Edited by Stun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the start, I kinda wish they had tried for something more unusual and imaginative than yet another Medieval European Fantasy RPG, but since the game was pitched as a spiritual successor to the Infinity Engine I understand why they did it.

 

I'm appeased on this score by the fact that the devil is in the details: just because you're making Medieval European Fantasy doesn't mean you're making a Tolkien rip-off, and the previous work of the writers along with the introduction of a lot of features from the Renaissance gives me hope the setting will have a look and feel all its own, even if (most of) the races and classes and such are very, very familiar. 

 

Technically it's not a medieval European fantasy. The wheellock weapon was introduced at the start of the sixteenth century; coincidentally at the end of the medieval period. The European colonial period also began at that time.

 

For me it's the story that matters; the characters, the interactions, the goals and the motivations. The setting just serves as a backdrop. But it does happen that a renaissance setting provides a good circumstance to play a larger than life hero. Most of the population are still caught up in the need to survive, to feed their family, and to bow to the local nobility. Only a handful of people actually make a difference, and as an adventurer you get to try being one of those people. In a more advanced society, you'd just be one amongst a myriad and so your goals are consequently less influential.


"It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a scenario. You're "adventuring" and you come across 2 piles. The 1st one has a bunch of plain old non-magical equipment, while the 2nd one has a bunch of unique-looking magical equipment. 99 out of 100 gamers will walk right past pile 1 to get to pile 2.

Getting what you want is not always good. After equiping all the armor and weapons in pile 2 you encounter 10 more piles, all with stuff weaker than pile2. Instead of being happy at finding stuff you just feel bored.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Here's a scenario. You're "adventuring" and you come across 2 piles. The 1st one has a bunch of plain old non-magical equipment, while the 2nd one has a bunch of unique-looking magical equipment. 99 out of 100 gamers will walk right past pile 1 to get to pile 2.

Getting what you want is not always good. After equiping all the armor and weapons in pile 2 you encounter 10 more piles, all with stuff weaker than pile2. Instead of being happy at finding stuff you just feel bored.

 

 

Ah, the old god mode problem 


Elan_song.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

this makes no sense. each does a different thing and what it does, depends on the kind of enemies you fight. if you manage to fight against fighters only during the entire course of the game and you never fight a magic user, the stat that defends from magic becomes useless. besides not all characters have the same defense stats: a fighter has high physical defense, but next to no magical defense, a wizard has high magic defense but almost no physical

 

You don't seem to get it. I made a hypothetical example of two stats that might well exist in the game and support certain defenses. I think deflection and reflexes are the two terms in P:E. What does it have to do with the fact that fighters will have high deflection and rogues will have high reflexes? Nothing. My concern was that both stats could be interchangeable if they are used to the same extent in the game, i.e. the difference between fighters and rogues would be non-existant, defense wise. Which I would find derpy and uninspiring.

 

P.S. I doubt that Obs would put both deflection and reflexes in the game if only one was ever tested by the game. So no, the "only fighters" and "only mages" scenarios won't happen.

 

you should read the skill descriptions better. deflection is a defense vs direct physical attacks. reflexes is a defense vs attacks of opportunity, traps and aoe damage. psyche is a defense against mental attacks and i dont remember the last one

so a rogue will easily avoid most of the aoe damage of a fireball and a fighter wont, however if a barbarian is pounding  on the fighter's shield with an axe he will barely put any hits in, while he will easily cut the thief in 2. that is the difference between the 2 stats. 

they do not provide the same defense in a different way, they provide defense against different things

Edited by teknoman2

The words freedom and liberty, are diminishing the true meaning of the abstract concept they try to explain. The true nature of freedom is such, that the human mind is unable to comprehend it, so we make a cage and name it freedom in order to give a tangible meaning to what we dont understand, just as our ancestors made gods like Thor or Zeus to explain thunder.

 

-Teknoman2-

What? You thought it was a quote from some well known wise guy from the past?

 

Stupidity leads to willful ignorance - willful ignorance leads to hope - hope leads to sex - and that is how a new generation of fools is born!


We are hardcore role players... When we go to bed with a girl, we roll a D20 to see if we hit the target and a D6 to see how much penetration damage we did.

 

Modern democracy is: the sheep voting for which dog will be the shepherd's right hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's 11 classes. And be thankful. We had to fight hard during the kickstarter to get that many. Most of them were stretch goals.

 

Am I the only one around here who'd more prefer fewer, but more focused and more widely customizable classes?

Edited by aluminiumtrioxid
  • Like 2

"Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

George Ziets is no longer working on the game.

Wait, what?

 

Is there a story behind this? Or is he simply finished doing what he was assigned to do?

 

He was on aa six month contract and it ended. If they need him for more, they would get him. No drama i'm afraid...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Naked Sagani of course  :( 

==========

I don't really understand the CRPG game mechanics, since I play RPGs mostly for its story.

IMO, PE updates lacks something weird. It needs more weird eldritch abominations, like a street giving birth in PST. It's just something you just can't understand.

From what I've seen, the setting of PE is largely familiar (basically an exploration age Europe with Hindu twist).

 

But I'm sure the devs will have some surprise for us, it's still too soon to tell.

 
Other than that, I don't have complaints :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem isn't that it makes both classes bland, but maybe that in both cases, there's nothing to be learned for the player. If a noob starts out making an uninformed decision about wether to play a fighter or a mage, let's say he's 50-50 about what class to choose. If you've played around with the game, and you find both fighters and mages to be equal in pretty much all circumstances, you're still at 50-50. You can't say "I'm going with an all fighter or fighter heavy party, because I've found that works best", nor can you say "I'm going to go with an all mage or mage heavy party because I enjoy the challenge".

I am in full agreement with you here. The key words are "equal in pretty much all circumstances." If that's the case, then either the class system or combat system (or encounter design) is to blame, not the sheer intent of balance. The entire thing hinges upon actually making external factors produce almost a sine wave of effectiveness from any given strength/stat-value/ability/class/etc. Just because the game's design failed to allow high DEX to produce significant differences in gameplay and viable tactics than high CON doesn't mean the two are unable to be significantly distinct, despite affecting generally the same thing -- survivability.

 

So, yes, there is a huge problem to be had there, but I don't see how we can blame something like two stats affecting the same factor when the factor was largely oversimplified in the design.

 

A class is weaker if the party is more efficient, overall, if that party slot is filled by another member. Overall being the key word here, so no, it doesn't have to apply to every single situation; or rather, it should not apply to every single situation, because in that case characters of that class are a liability and a victim of bad design.

Also agreed. When I think of an entire class (with no more specifics stated) being "weaker," I can't help but think of the latter; unconditional inferiority. That should never happen. It's the same with anything in the game that bears variety. Weapons. If axes ALWAYS do 40% less damage than any other weapon type, then there's an incentive to NOT use axes, ever. So long as it's conditional, though, everything's fine.

 

Some examples (at low levels): in BG, the average player will assemble a party of more non-spellcasters than spellcasters, because bows get the job done quite a bit more efficient than casters. This becomes clear to an experienced player (reading the manual is not enough, because the hit chance with a bow depends on the enemies' armor class). However, I've heard of quite a few people who like to make magic heavy parties on their subsequent playthroughs as a challenge and because they'd never take certain characters otherwise (like Quayle). This is not to say that casters don't shine, they do, but they can only fling so many Stinking Clouds and Fireballs before they've burned through them, and they die horribly easily.

Agreed, and I fault that method of balancing for that. Sure, spellcasters are pretty insane later on in that ruleset, but the very condition of their non-inferiority is basically a grind; once you've put up with having a sub-par (like you said... overall) party for 7 or 8 levels, their balancing conditional superiority shines. It's at complete odds with the pace of gameplay and the overall combat system, though. "Suck for a while... then pretty much lose the ability to suck" isn't a very tactic-friendly shift, I don't think.

 

That's one thing I love about P:E's design: the caster-types will still have that sort of glass-cannon treatment, but it will be a lot more consistent. They won't be a friggin' cocoon you have to protect for half the game so that a dragon can hatch out of it.

 

No, but there are reasons why you are a behind-the-lines-er, and in most cases this will be due to the fact that you're not as good at surviving [close] combat.

Very true. But, if the game doesn't deprive you of alternatives to close combat, then that doesn't automatically equal "you're going to die all the time because you're a back-liner." That's the conditionality (don't know if that's a real word) we've both stated is necessary. If your party runs into 15 close-combat foes that just charge into melee range, then yeah, your behind-the-line-ers are going to be worse for the wear under those circumstances. The reciprocal situation is, of course, encountering 15 ranged combatants, in which case all the close-combat survivability in the world isn't going to help your front-liners. Why? Because the behind-the-line region has suddenly become the front-line, functionally.

 

So, again, you can't have effective balance in your class system without effective balance in your encounters. If you've only got 2 situations (or 95% of the encounters all demand close-combat survivability, for example, from every member of your party) that repeat throughout the entire game, and your class system is built to account for 7, then trouble ensues. That's like designing an engine that needs fuel, then depriving it of fuel. That says nothing bad of the engine's design, because nothing's stopping you from simply supplying it with fuel.

 

It's possible that better balance across classes actually improves the chance of many different viable party setups. It can also make things more boring. Trade-offs, I guess.

Indeed; this is all easier said than done. I realize that. There's always the potential to overcompensate for factors, or improperly balance things to create blatant problems and inadvertently make things boring, etc. But, I firmly believe it's possible to do it all properly, and to great effect. When I see games do it poorly, I don't take that as aggregate evidence as to the design's probability. I take it as additional data to utilize in the continued effort to reach as close as possible to the ideal design, to figure out how close it it's possible to get. If you're mining, and you hit something you can't mine through, it doesn't mean mining is a terrible idea. It simply means that that's not a direction/location in which you can mine to discover whatever there might be in the area. Until you find that you absolutely cannot go in any other direction but back the way you came, there's no reason to assume mining is futile.

 

I know... I'm an optimist. :)

 

Really, though, for what it's worth, I appreciate your responses. They've helped me think about these things from different angles. I value your exploration of the issue more than some ultimate decision as to whether or not it's a good design intent or a bad one.

  • Like 1

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You don't seem to get it. I made a hypothetical example of two stats that might well exist in the game and support certain defenses. I think deflection and reflexes are the two terms in P:E. What does it have to do with the fact that fighters will have high deflection and rogues will have high reflexes? Nothing. My concern was that both stats could be interchangeable if they are used to the same extent in the game, i.e. the difference between fighters and rogues would be non-existant, defense wise. Which I would find derpy and uninspiring.

you should read the skill descriptions better. deflection is a defense vs direct physical attacks. reflexes is a defense vs attacks of opportunity, traps and aoe damage. psyche is a defense against mental attacks and i dont remember the last one

so a rogue will easily avoid most of the aoe damage of a fireball and a fighter wont, however if a barbarian is pounding  on the fighter's shield with an axe he will barely put any hits in, while he will easily cut the thief in 2. that is the difference between the 2 stats. 

they do not provide the same defense in a different way, they provide defense against different things

 

I'm sensing a potential misunderstanding here, so I'm going to go with a just-in-case clarification:

 

I could be wrong, but the way I gathered it, each different defense value (Deflection, Fortitude, Reflexes, and Psyche) will only function specifically against the attacks that target that particular defense type. BUT, they won't act as an armor value, or as an elemental resistance in some games (which, I'm sorry if I'm mistaken, but it appears both of you seem to believe it will? -- also, I could be the one misunderstanding the system).

 

If you have 10 Deflection and 25 Reflexes, and the incoming attack has an Accuracy/Attack rating of 20, then the type of attack it is (which defense it's targeting) matters a lot. If it's targeting your Deflection, then the foe has a 10-point advantage in his attack, which I believe translates directly into a 10-point shift in the miss-graze-hit-crit attack scale. So, instead of 5-45-45-5 (respectively, in the event of perfectly matched Accuracy and Defense values), your attacker would get 0-40-45-15. So, whatever attack that is (spell, ability, standard strike, etc.), it can no longer miss completely, it has a 5% lesser chance of grazing, and it gains a 10% chance to crit.

 

Now, instead assume that the attack was Reflex-based. So, the same 20 versus your 25 Reflexes (instead of 10 Deflection) results in a 5-point advantage to YOU, the defender. Shift the scale 5 points in your favor, and you get 10-45-45-0. Your foe has lost his chance to crit, completely, and has a 5% higher chance to miss.

 

So, it's not just a "Warriors' and Rogues' defenses are called different things but all work the same way against every single attack" situation. Which, yes, if it were like that, it would be admittedly quite silly.

 

And I apologize if I saw misunderstanding where there wasn't one. I'm only trying to be helpful, in the event something WAS misunderstood.


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Here's a scenario. You're "adventuring" and you come across 2 piles. The 1st one has a bunch of plain old non-magical equipment, while the 2nd one has a bunch of unique-looking magical equipment. 99 out of 100 gamers will walk right past pile 1 to get to pile 2.

Getting what you want is not always good. After equiping all the armor and weapons in pile 2 you encounter 10 more piles, all with stuff weaker than pile2. Instead of being happy at finding stuff you just feel bored.

 

So... you're saying we should pick pile 1? Will that cure our unhappiness and boredom?

Edited by Stun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I like the logic and versatility of the soul-system, I wonder if it might get too artifical to talk of "souls" all the time. "Mwahaha. Your soul is no match for mine."

Edited by MattH
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I like the logic and versatility of the soul-system, I wonder if it might get too artifical to talk of "souls" all the time. "Mwahaha. Your soul is no match for mine."

I hear ya, but I don't think it will, so long as every talk of souls isn't accompanied by a "Mwahaha," :)

 

Really though, it's about good writing. At first, the frequency of mention of "souls" will seem a little weird, because we're not familiar with just walking around constantly talking about how souls affect everyday actions and capabilities. But, so long as the writing has it treated like a natural part of the lore/world and not some overly dramatic thing that incurs gasps every time its mentioned, it should be fine.

 

I mean... in a world of telekinetics, moving something with your mind would be as un-noteworthy as opening a door or sitting in a chair is to us, so you wouldn't go around noting the details of how you sat in that chair, or expertly turned that doorknob.

 

That's why I think it's hilarious when, in movies and such, people using telekinesis (for example) always have to make a big show of it, and/or expend a whole bunch of effort. Or, when people can fly, and on the screen it looks like they're just dangling around, waiting to be set down on the ground. It should really look deliberate and familiar, and pretty simple (the very act of it, at least) to someone who consistently utilizes such a capability. Or, heck, just take a Rogue in a fantasy RPG setting. He's not going to start deftly juggling knives all about every time combat starts. If you're his opponent, you really shouldn't see how skilled he is with a knife until it's protruding from your neck before you even saw him pull it out. The writing doesn't need to draw constant attention to exceptional knife skill in every mundane second of events.

  • Like 3

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt it could turn out very bad anyway, just maybe not so great sometimes. It seems not far-fetched at all and a believable explanation of magical phenomena. It's the dualism of matter and spirit that fantasy assumes. It also opens up a whole world of thematic exploration and might serve as a foundation for traditional metaphysics.

 

However, having the soul referred to as something almost separate from yourself and something to calculate and strategize with, might let some things appear abstract, like accounting matters or soul-economics, and not imbibed with the necessary seriousness (apart from being somewhat inconsistent). In Steven Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen, for example, souls and spirits are also naturally assumed, but it's not exactly the soul-ness that is often referred to, but rather some soul-property or ability or a concrete action, just like in ordinary speech. Yes, It should be fine as long as it is often tied back to some natural occurrence or first-hand experience and doesn't overrun ordinary speech.

Edited by MattH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this mention of "souls" just has me thinking about soul music, and I'm not sure if that mental image is very conducive to my roleplaying...

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one around here who'd more prefer fewer, but more focused and more widely customizable classes?

No.

 

My Numenera/Cypher System crush is still ongoing. That only has three classes, and it's absolutely brilliant. You can play just about any character concept you can imagine based on those three. Even the stock selection of descriptors and foci allow for thousands of combinations. That's more variety than you get in D&D chargen!

 

(You can play with the classes with this utility I made.)

  • Like 2

I have a project. It's a tabletop RPG. It's free. It's a work in progress. Find it here: www.brikoleur.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Mwahaha. Your soul is no match for mine."

 

That sounds very... anime-like. Which I find hilarious, yet strangely compelling. (Also, the Icewind Dale series had some pretty stupid dialogue, too.)


"Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"Mwahaha. Your soul is no match for mine."

 

That sounds very... anime-like. Which I find hilarious, yet strangely compelling. (Also, the Icewind Dale series had some pretty stupid dialogue, too.)

 

 

This is disturbing, but brings back memories...

 

- Somebody set up us the bomb!

- Main screen turn on.

- All your base are belong to us!

  • Like 1

It would be of small avail to talk of magic in the air...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this mention of "souls" just has me thinking about soul music, and I'm not sure if that mental image is very conducive to my roleplaying...

*That* would be an awesome game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Here's a scenario. You're "adventuring" and you come across 2 piles. The 1st one has a bunch of plain old non-magical equipment, while the 2nd one has a bunch of unique-looking magical equipment. 99 out of 100 gamers will walk right past pile 1 to get to pile 2.

Getting what you want is not always good. After equiping all the armor and weapons in pile 2 you encounter 10 more piles, all with stuff weaker than pile2. Instead of being happy at finding stuff you just feel bored.

 

So... you're saying we should pick pile 1? Will that cure our unhappiness and boredom?

 

We can't resist the lure of pile 2 even if it's no good for us. Personally I find the unique magical items cooler and memorable if I have to go through many piles of ordinary equipment to find just one. If it's just everywhere, the coolness suffers a huge inflation. Doesn't matter if it gets progressively more powerful as the game progresses or not. "+13 sword? I just upgraded all my gear to +12 two rooms back."

  • Like 2

SODOFF Steam group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't like that the huge dungeon was such a big thing that'll obviously take some good development time. The only thing I hate about these isometric RPG's is having to troll through even a 2 level dungeon/cave of some sort, the combat is just filler to level up all I care about is the story and getting what I need from the dungeon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't like that the huge dungeon was such a big thing that'll obviously take some good development time. The only thing I hate about these isometric RPG's is having to troll through even a 2 level dungeon/cave of some sort, the combat is just filler to level up all I care about is the story and getting what I need from the dungeon.

Of course story is paramount. It's also not mutually exclusive to dungeons. The trick to making a dungeon memorable is to give it a good story. A story that ends up being just as compelling as the combat itself. And when they pull that off, there's nothing better in all of gaming. Often times though, developers fail. Even the dungeons in the IE games were hit-and-miss in that regard.

 

But.... Durlag's Tower, for example. That was one of the times that they hit it out of the park! It dripped with story and combat. To the point where I was more interested in it than I was for the main game's plot. That's what I want from PE's Mega Dungeon.

Edited by Stun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...