Update #66: Double Whammy

[Lephys]

The stronghold buff is definitely a pre-buff. It just isn't tedious usually because you don't have to do repetitious tasks to get it (as I said, this is one of the remedies, but it also makes the buff a bit superfluous). The only time you will ever have fun with this buff is when you proudly buy the facility in your stronghold to get it. After that it is just something you incidentally have if you recently visited the stronghold and it might make you hold off resting for one further fight because you want to still have the buff. The moment you actively go back to the stronghold only to have the buff for the next fight it becomes slightly tedious.

Again you could view almost anything that conditionally provides a bonus in exactly the same light, if you wanted to.

 

Armor. The only time you will ever have fun with the extra DT "buff" is when you proudly buy the armor to get it. After that, it's just something you incidentally have whenever wearing that armor. The only difference is that it doesn't wear off at any point. But, you might find better armor, though, or "need" better armor for some tough fight. The moment you actively leave that fight to go back to town to buy new armor just to have the benefit of bonus DT protection, it becomes tedious.

 

Resting. It "buffs" your spell ammo. So, maybe you run back to that rest location to have 10 spells instead of 9 at your disposal, for that really tough fight. Tedium.

 

The only good reason for the stronghold buff is (besides the meta-reason of having something to throw money at and give the stronghold a justification to exist) that you might encounter a fight that is so hard that you need every last bit of help and decide to make a stopp-over at the stronghold to get the buff.

See... you're looking at the only possibly dynamic of this as being your active use of the stronghold resting bonuses because you NEED them. You don't NEED a training yard at a stronghold, but you can buy one, and then you get a bonus. You don't NEED mithril plate instead of steel plate, but you can buy it, and then you get a bonus. You don't NEED any specific Talent you can take from a given list of options (all of which you cannot have, because you only have so many total points with which to choose), but you can take any one of them, and you get that bonus.

 

Sorry I'm so negative about this. I don't see a way around the problems and I think I showed why any conventional solution is bound to fail because of fundamental reasons.

I'm sorry you're so negative about it, as well. But, it's your choice. You can feel like these types of things are all terrible decisions and they can't ever be good things, if you'd like. I had just hoped to at least convince you of the possibility of doing them better than we've seen, and of how the inherent qualities of their sheer existence do not make them bad. So you wouldn't have to feel so negative every time you thought of things that are already in the game, even, like the stronghold resting bonuses.

 

If we disagree, we disagree. But a possibility is a possibility, whether it's my preference to focus on it or not.

[jethro]

 

The stronghold buff is definitely a pre-buff. [...] The moment you actively go back to the stronghold only to have the buff for the next fight it becomes slightly tedious.

Again you could view almost anything that conditionally provides a bonus in exactly the same light, if you wanted to.

 

Armor. The only time you will ever have fun with the extra DT "buff" is when you proudly buy the armor to get it. After that, it's just something you incidentally have whenever wearing that armor. The only difference is that it doesn't wear off at any point. But, you might find better armor, though, or "need" better armor for some tough fight. The moment you actively leave that fight to go back to town to buy new armor just to have the benefit of bonus DT protection, it becomes tedious.

 

Oh sure, finding the armor is the fun part, after that it is the status quo. But it doesn't matter because you don't have to do any maintenance with it. It isn't exactly comparable to a pre-buff because the benefit is permanent as long as you wear it.

 

I added the "tedious" sentence just for completeness sake, aka if you as the player turn it into an actively maintained pre-buff you also probably are ruining your own game experience. I don't mean that the stronghold buffs should be scraped, they are exactly how they should be and do what they have been created for. They are no-maintenance pre-buffs but also their actual influence in the game is very limited, but that's how it must be.

 

You can feel like these types of things are all terrible decisions and they can't ever be good things, if you'd like. I had just hoped to at least convince you of the possibility of doing them better than we've seen, and of how the inherent qualities of their sheer existence do not make them bad. So you wouldn't have to feel so negative every time you thought of things that are already in the game, even, like the stronghold resting bonuses.

As I said we just have a misunderstanding about the stronghold bonus, hope I could correct that.

 

My point about pre-buffs is really that a normal RPG automatically has a high degree of buff mechanisms that need to be there that there isn't much room for more, especially the (somewhat "toxic") active (i.e. activated by the player) pre-buffs. As soon as you have a variety of spells you have combat buffs and often a few pre-buffs as well from that. In PE you also have resting buffs, stronghold buffs, surely potions. Like in many other normal RPGs. If done well, they are just the right amount, but it is an easy to apply mechanism, and designers easily fall into the trap to put too much of that into the game, especially with the spell system. There just isn't any room left for food pre-buffs in any normal RPG.

 

It's like salt in supermarket pizzas. They usually have a good amount of salt. It is easy to add salt and it is used quite liberally by pizza manufacturers. If you want to further add salt use it very sparingly, it already is at the limit and it is even detrimental for your health. Better, just don't.

Edited November 9, 2013 by jethro

[Lephys]

No no, I understand. To put it simply, the thing about buff-type things is to use them sparingly, much like seasoning (good example).

 

I'm only trying to encourage thinking regarding the possibility that there are methods by which to allow food to be a factor without oversalting the pizza, so to speak.

 

Look at stances. The ones that bestow some kind of benefit and detriment, and are not resource dependent, or duration-based. They are simply mutually exclusive. You can activate a different one, but only by DE-activating the current one. You could use none, I suppose, but the system is basically designed to assume that you're going to use one of the given options at any given time. They aren't really a "bonus," so much as a "difference," because "stanceless" isn't the norm. The norm is simply a stance, whichever one you want to use. Then, you have restrictions on swapping, so you can't just insta-juggle them to get whatever different factor values you want at any specific moment. So, the decision of WHICH stance to use is somewhat preparatory, but it's hardly a pre-buff. It's not a temporary thing that you always need to set just before going into battle for maximum effect. Yet, you might need to make the significant choice of CHANGING it before engaging a certain group of enemies.

 

Same with weapon types. You might need to whip out your crushing weapons (for example) for maximum effectiveness against a particularly tough group of foes with a high resistance to most other stuff.

 

The thing with food is, I don't think it would be the end of the world if you did have some kind of long-term duration on them. But, that would really depend upon the distance between rest points and such, so I can't even begin to decide whether or not there should be a duration, or how long it should be.

 

But, does that make sense? Food could (the key word here) offer a variety of bonuses that the typical stronghold/inn-resting wouldn't. I mean, food isn't going to tread on the hedgemaze's territory by boosting your Stealth. "This sweetroll makes my footfalls quieter! 8D!"

 

So, yeah. I don't think it's some kind of automatic oversalting, just the sheer possibility of food being in and granting "bonuses." You could have findable food be rarer/expensive or whatever, with some form of cooking/survival/other skill offering you a greater variety of options more often, rather than just downright "better and better" bonuses. Interesting bonuses.

 

It's just a possibility. Just as the addition of food overdoing things is. I simply acknowledge both, and choose to explore the former as much as I can before ruling it out, rather than exploring ways in which it could be ruled out. To me, ways in which it could be ruled out are simply ways in which NOT to do the mechanic, not reasons why it shouldn't be attempted.

[Posbi]

So, I'm late to the party. Probably too late. But here's my two cents.

 

Okay, I've thought a bit about what kept me unsatisfied/worried about the player stronghold preview and I think I've been able to pin my worries down by now: the preview, well, it's less than stellar on several levels. Yes, I know that's harsh, and it is not meant as an accusation against the people who do the modeling and rendering, and I apologize if I've just insulted them. However, having said that, here's my reasoning for being so critical. The problems are on the conceptual level.

 

Project Eternity and its background try to present a world rooted in what I'd call magical realism (it's fantasy with magic and monsters, but adheres to basic RL logic), a world that's going through a political, economic and technological transition. There's a been a war, there are still tensions, and the placement and design of fortifications and settlements should represent as much. Even if we don't go with the full medieval European design there are a few basic functions any stronghold's placement would come down to, regardless of cultural and/or time period inspiration: border protection, trade route protection, vital landmark protection (river ford, mountain pass, etc.), settlement protection. From this also flows its general design.

 

Example? Crossroads Keep from NWN2. It presides over a crossroads, a junction of trade routes.

 

What it does needs to be represented in the general map layout (what is its basic function?) - is it watching over a river ford, is it controlling a trade route, is it the administrative center over nearby villages, etc. - as well as it needs to show in the keep's own layout (design). What the stronghold has to have is an ingame meta-function that goes beyond player stronghold. It needs a raison d'être, a reason why it's there in the first place!

 

 

What we have here is just an artificial hodgepodge of elements that, by and large, have no right to exist there in the first place. You need to decide what this place's original meta-function was/is and develop it from there on. Because right now it's just a shambles of disparate elements that are placed there because you want them, and not because they make any kind of in-game sense. I know that what we see is a WIP, so my critcism can only be limited and based on the elements we are shown here. And there is one thing that holds true for almost every interpretation of a stronghold: Inside the walls space is a limited commodity.

 

Is it a fortress?

Then where are moat and drawbridge and weapons emplacements? And why does it look more like a theme park? Where are the stables and barracks and forges, and why does everything waste so much space? You do realize how a fortress looks, don't you? It's huge, imposing and uses the terrain to its advantage. This here is a fortress (Krak des Chevaliers):

 

Is it a noble's manor?

Then why is the house we see on the upper right corner so dull and small, and why is the place so heavily fortified? A manor isn't a fortress; it's a place where you live your everyday life in the highest possible amount of comfort.

 

Is it a settlement?

Too few houses spread too far; no obvious craftsmen; no seat of power. Now, settlements don't need to have seats of power, but since it's supposed to be your settlement... Take this here, for example. It's pre-medieval but conveys the idea well enough.

Houses are clustered closely together to save space. The larger the space, the more able bodied men are needed to defend it! Limited agriculture is done inside the courtyards of each house cluster. This holds true to an even greater extent for walled medieval/renaissance-era settlement.

 

A castle/noble's keep?

Too much space is wasted, there's no visible center to it all, and it's not fortified enough. Worst of all - and that counts for all iterations aside from the manor house - there's no visible geographic component that suggest why the thing's been placed there in the first place. Take this here, for example. It sits on an elevated rock formation and guards a small river and a trade route below:

 

 

The thing you have to ask yourselves is "What was this place, and how can it become what we want it to be?" Right now the apparent logic simply seems to be "We want a player stronghold with pre-existing accomodations for different races and classes." What needs to be established, however, is why such a place exists right there in the first place, and why it exists in its current form.

 

So, what does this mean for the general design of the place?

First, lets sum up what we have so far: you have to make up your minds why this place is where it is for what reason BEFORE the player becomes the owner. What was its original function, and does what we have fit that description?

Secondly, how can you achieve what you want without it looking as - sorry guys - ridiculously stupid as the images above?

 

And the most simple and versatile alternative here would be a tower keep sitting on a rock spur above a river ford. You can literally use that for everything. Want a maze? Nearby woods. A place for bards to perform? Your great hall or a tavern at the foot of the hill. You're a mage? Then this is your mage tower. Fighter? Noble. And each of those variants can be mixed, and your stronghold can expand organically to fit them. It also allows for enough accomodation inside to house your companions, and offers enough of a reasonable location to have mini-quests, battles and you doing "administrative" work.

 

Whatever you do, please promise me it'll make more sense than what you have now.

[Solviulnir the Soulbinder]

That fortress (Krak des Chevaliers) picture is all kinds of awesome.
Imho PE stronghold should somewhat resemble The Friendly Arm Inn. It's a nice hybrid, blends nicely majority of the ideas laid out by Posbi.
In the current version the walls and gate look okay, but the buildings seem too small somehow... 

I'd either drop the walls altogether and call it a mansion or keep the walls and replace the central building with something more imposig and call it a fortress or a keep.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Solviulnir the Soulbinder

[Boox]

[Good stuff.]

Those are good points. Having a proper reason for the stronghold to exist and tying it to the land, definitely adds to the game in terms of suspension of disbelief and lore. Putting the stronghold in the game just because it is on a list of stretch goals to be implemented and not putting any proper design effort into it would detract a lot from the experience. Having the stronghold events reflect the original purpose of the stronghold would also deepen immersion and also allow the player to feel more connected to the lore and the world, in my opinion. However, I don't think it's fair to say based on two WIP screenshots alone that Obsidian haven't taken these concerns into account and I hope/trust they have.

 

I also agree with Posbi and Solviulnir that the insides of the stronghold are a little lacking, though. I'd think that a stronghold would be more densely filled with buildings and other structures, since it can't be cheap to build such massive walls and space should be at a premium.

[Posbi]

Well, I do admit that my criticism is based on what little we know/have been shown, so there's a chance the final product will look differently. But I do believe that, given the level of maturity of us players and of the game itself as Obsidian envisions it, the points both Solviulnir and I have raised deserve to be addressed. As is, both the D'Anise's castle (BGII) - limited as it was - and the Crossroads Keep (NWN2) make far more sense from a meta-perspective than what little Obsidian has presented to us. Just to make this clear: I don't expect our stronghold to be a carbon copy of the Krak des Chevaliers. But a stronghold - ingame and outside - follows a certain logic, and the glimpse we've been given really shows none.

 

This here, for example, would be a decent player stronghold in opinion.

 

It's got the military aspects, it sticks to features of the landscape, it's got ample space without being wasteful, it's not too expansive, it offers enough choices for ingame construction (you could, for example, just start with the ruined main tower and expand from there on), it's got agriculture, a nearby river, the possibility of a village etc.

[Mor]

@Posbi, I think you made some good points in the previous post, the early concept art release for our stronghold indeed looks bland. Like a HoMM town screen, with a huge wall around it rather than an actual stronghold. Hopefully its just an early concept, because with few tweaks it can look just like this:

 

 

This here, for example, would be a decent player stronghold in opinion.

 

Edited December 6, 2013 by Mor

[jethro]

Good points, Posbi, but it seems you didn't take time into account. The walls could be from a different time than the houses inside. There could have been a town outside and more buildings inside, but they could have been razzed in a war or burned by a fire. Someone else could have taken over an essentially abandoned place, a nobel with just enough money to build a country house (which by the way is only seen partly and could be a lot bigger) and enlist a few peasants for the growing of food.

 

That the placement of the peasant huts and the amphitheatre seems so random is a valid point though. At least a noble would make sure that there is a clear path from the wall entrance to his front porch and not an obstacle littered maze of huts. And the amphitheatre directly behind the wall entrance is especially bad.

 

The country house though looks very much like a french country house suitable for a lower class french noble (https://www.google.de/search?q=country+house+french&tbm=isch, though google delivers lots of faux french country houses in the US, it seems)

 

You show pictures of a few castles, but what does that prove? Here some other pictures, of a very old irish fort, a rural french chateau and an english country house, to show some of the variety:

 

 

Text beneath the english country house in wikipedia, very fitting to this discussion:

"The English country house can be vast or comparatively small and of great or little architectural merit."

 

If Obsidian produces a good backstory for their stronghold I would have no problem accepting the design. I wouldn't be sorry though if they changed it to something needing less explanation ;-).

But I really hope they keep the modest design. I don't want to start as a low-level adventurer and be owner of a castle built for a baron or duke when I'm level 7. The picture Mor reposted is apparently of the old castle of Osterode ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alte_Burg_%28Osterode%29 ). It was continually in the possession of a few kings and later a few dukes. Overkill IMHO

Edited December 6, 2013 by jethro

[Posbi]

Again, it comes down to what the stronghold's ingame meta-function was and how it came to be. Problem is, we only have that one small comparison shot to work with.

 

As for the pictures I posted: their main point is to emphasize that function defines form. Ironically, that fact devalues your images to a great degree. Or rather, they make my point rather than yours. Their form follows their function: temporary defensive retreat (Irish ring fort), noble seat of power built back from medieval fortification (French chateau) and private seat of a noble family (English country house). To elaborate on this, our screenshot isn't the first as part one seems to indicate its elements have been there, together, and only fallen into ruin. It's not the second, as that'd mean fewer outer defenses/old castle structures refurbished into a renaissance chateau. And neither is it the third (there the maze would fit, but the outer walls wouldn't).

 

But, okay, I'll stop here. I feel I'm splitting hairs here over something we actually seem to agree on: the stronghold should make sense ingame, right? And to that end what we've got is far from perfect so far.

 

As for keeping it modest, I do agree with you in principle, but the castle I posted and Mor reposted? That is a pretty modest, standard, lower tier noble, medieval castle. For more examples, take this link here (it shows all castles in my home state, separated by counties; the main menu should bring you to a national and Europe-wide listing ). It's in German, but there are pictures and layouts for many of them. Another one is The Castles of Wales (in English). You'll see that most high medieval stone castles are either as large or substantially larger than the example I posted.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Posbi

[jethro]

To elaborate on this, our screenshot isn't the first as part one seems to indicate its elements have been there, together, and only fallen into ruin.

I'm not contesting that they fell in disuse together. The question is whether they were built together. And I fail to see how you can determine that from the picture. Most castles and country estates are conglomerates of parts built in different centuries. Quote wikipedia about Castle Heidelberg: "The earliest castle structure was built before AD 1214 and later expanded into 2 castles circa 1294; however, in 1537, a lightning-bolt destroyed the upper castle. The present structures had been expanded by 1650, before damage by later wars and fires. In 1764, another lightning-bolt destroyed some rebuilt sections."

 

To make it clear, the timeline of our stronghold could be this:

 

castle built with walls ----> war,razzing, disuse ---> changed into a country house by a lower noble, walls repaired ------> disuse ---------------> now.

 

 

But, okay, I'll stop here. I feel I'm splitting hairs here over something we actually seem to agree on: the stronghold should make sense ingame, right? And to that end what we've got is far from perfect so far.

I would be perfectly fine with an ingame history that made sense. But not needing an explanation at all would be even better

 

As for keeping it modest, I do agree with you in principle, but the castle I posted and Mor reposted? That is a pretty modest, standard, lower tier noble, medieval castle. For more examples, take ....

 

 

Your example links point to castles, and to my knowledge castles were unbelievably expensive in medieval times. Kings or Dukes could build them, lower nobility surely not. A king could also give a small castle as a lease to someone deserving or to a knight to make some border safe.

Now we are talking about a stronghold, a stronghold aka Festung could just be some buildings inside a fortification. See Festung Dömitz as an example:

 

 

Burg Oesterode (your modest castle) is small compared to Castle Heidelberg for example. But the black and white seems to understate the size a bit. Look closer and you see that it is surprisingly large, especially compared to anything "not-castly" built in the 12th century. It was built by a king and kings lived in it. I'm no expert and I could be totally wrong, but that doesn't look like something a lower noble could have built.

[Posbi]

I'm not contesting that they fell in disuse together. The question is whether they were built together. And I fail to see how you can determine that from the picture. Most castles and country estates are conglomerates of parts built in different centuries. Quote wikipedia about Castle Heidelberg: "The earliest castle structure was built before AD 1214 and later expanded into 2 castles circa 1294; however, in 1537, a lightning-bolt destroyed the upper castle. The present structures had been expanded by 1650, before damage by later wars and fires. In 1764, another lightning-bolt destroyed some rebuilt sections."

 

To make it clear, the timeline of our stronghold could be this:

 

castle built with walls ----> war,razzing, disuse ---> changed into a country house by a lower noble, walls repaired ------> disuse ---------------> now.

 

 

Depends on how the actual idea of country houses fits the setting. As far as my understanding goes the idea of the country house, IRL, came up when castles in general had fallen out of style due to their limited value against "modern" firearms and their lack of comfort. But that was from the late 1700s onwards, not the early Renaissance-setting of Eternity.

But that's just me nitpicking. I do agree with you that I'll generally be fine with whatever they come up with as long as it makes sense in game.

Your example links point to castles, and to my knowledge castles were unbelievably expensive in medieval times. Kings or Dukes could build them, lower nobility surely not. A king could also give a small castle as a lease to someone deserving or to a knight to make some border safe.

The majority of the stone castles linked there were actually built by simple knights and lower nobles, for example counts. Sometimes very quickly, sometimes over dozens of years, with them being expanded/adapted by following generations. Which wouldn't be the worst template for the player stronghold. I initially suggested a simple ruined tower keep as an all-round solution. That'd allow for modest expansion without going overboard, and other elements like the maze could be placed in nearby woods. I suppose what I'd like to see is a more "organic" approach to the stronghold idea.

 

As for the rest of teh castles, they indeed were erected by the prince electors or on order of the King. Don't know how the majority of the Welsh castles came to be, though I suppose that significantly more were constructed by or on the order of the English crown and the Welsh princes fighting them, with wooden moats being more often used by lower nobles than on the continent around the same time period.

 

Now we are talking about a stronghold, a stronghold aka Festung could just be some buildings inside a fortification. See Festung Dömitz as an example:

 

 

The thing is, that type of stronghold (a starfort, I believe) only became fashionable once (comparably) long-ranged and powerful artillery dominated the battlefield. It dates to the times when individual nobels really no longer had the personal power they might have held in prior centuries. Sure, a noble would be in command there, but it would be as little his stronghold as the Pentagon is owned by the highest-ranking general there. Different time, different social functions I suppose.

 

But I'm very glad you bring up these points. Best way to spot the flaws in my arguments, and arguably the best way to discuss means to make the player stronghold a better concept.

[Posbi]

Add: I think it's worth discussing these points since they mainly concern cosmetic issues of the game, or partially issues with player immersion. That means the underlying concepts to make individual aspects work (the maze, the forum, etc.) aren't affected by any possible change in the visual design. It's better for us and for Obsidian if issues that are brought up can be corrected (if so wanted) with a comparably small effort.

[Mor]

Like I said before, the current stronghold looks like an early concept art i.e. to show us how it will work the two states for buildings ruined/rebuilt and present some of the "features"(building) of the stronghold. If that all it is then fine, otherwise it looks like a walled in collection of loosely related building, not somewhere people would live.

 

 

 

For example, here I can believe people lived:

 

 

 

Remove most of the houses add spread around a Forum, Hedge Maze, Botanical gardens and huge expansive wall and not so much... Like I said from the start, I am pretty certain that is an early concept art, it certainly lacks a lot of elements and I am hopeful that in the final version it will look more functional and alive.

 

p.s. per previous reference here is NWN2 stronghold:

 

 

Source

 

 

Edited December 7, 2013 by Mor

[Solviulnir the Soulbinder]

I don't really think Obsidian will change the stronghold apeareance too much and deviate siginficantly from what we saw in the released screenshots.
Maybe it's too late, maybe it's too much work for the graphics dept. at this point in the development cycle.

But it's important to try and provide some constructive critique and feedback - maybe the devs will say "hey, that's not a bad idea, let's note that down and implement this stuff in the add-on or future update".

Thing is, Hector, Kaz and Polina are jaw-droppingly awesome at what they do. And as pros, I'm sure they welcome all kinds of creative and reasonable input from the community.
And that's what we do - just throw ideas around, brainstorm, come up with suggestions with the hope that maybe some of them will prove of some use for the devs and make PE even better.

Cheers.   

[Mor]

You don't need to change it too much, only fill it up a bit(even if you double up buildings or leave some in ruins) and move things around so the layout looks like it has more purpose. Other than more living houses maybe a blacksmith? stable? a farmland outside? don't waste a huge space on a botanic garden put it behind a house. Everything else will be taken care off in the last pass when the fill up the inside with as much details as the walls.

 

Its hard to offer more than that, because we don't know where the project stands, all the elements/restrictions/events/etc and anything my poor skill with paint can do will be eyerolled or laughed at by the pros...

[Tamerlane]

Um. Mor, I may be misreading you completely, but... are you looking at that one screenshot and assuming that it's the entirety of the stronghold? Rather than, like, a slice of it? Because that'd be roughly the equivalent of me doing this:

 

 

... and asking where all the houses and people and other buildings are.

[Mor]

Here on the left original, on the right my edit(sorry for my meager pain.net copy&paste skill).

 

 

 

I added couple of houses to make it feel like its more than just huge utility lot for your skill training buildings. I cleared the road from the gate to the manor house and added a clearing in front of it(there is always a town center of sorts). On the main path you got all the daily/main buildings, the forum and three house "hood" where you can have your craftsmen(blacksmith working in the yard?), behind you can have a horse perches(? the thing you tie horse to) and wheat stack. Bellow in the unused space near the wall I added another house maybe a guard house.

 

You can put the Botanical gardens near and behind one of the houses, no need to take a full lot for it.

Edited December 7, 2013 by Mor

[jethro]

Mor++, excellent improvements.

 

I asked a friend (with more knowledge about castle architecture than me) how he would rate the stronghold. He said the castle walls are wrong, they look more like town walls or walls to a really big castle (which I assume couldn't vanish completely even if razzed, not with the wall still standing as if nothing had happened). He also said he doesn't mind that it is not accurate, this is a fantasy universe ;-)

 

He also said that lower nobility could and did erect castles as well, for example if they had the luck of profiting from a trade route or natural resources. He also did rate Castle Oesterode as a small castle, but as too big to just give to some low level adventurers.

[Tamerlane]

psyduck.png

[Posbi]

Sure, we don't know the full design. But that's hardly a reason not to critique the flaws in the design we do know.

 

[Solviulnir the Soulbinder]

Yeah, the moat sux quite royally, but it's just to visualise an idea for discussion purposes. 
 

[Posbi]

You know, that's pretty awesome. Nice one, Solviulnir!

[Solviulnir the Soulbinder]

Thanks mate, much appreciated! 

Funny thing though, now that I rearanged the area within the walls I kind of understand the logic behind Obsidian design.
When there's just one huge fortified building that takes up so much space, there's really little you can do to to represent all the promised "components" of the stronghold.
I.e. I see how they needed to cater for the needs of many e.g. botanical garden/maze/forum etc. There needs to be place for all that stuff and all of it is equally important as some people will have fun growing poisonous plants, others hone their stealth skill in the maze (?) etc. etc.
The way I visualised it, imho only the warrior type character would be happy with it.

So yeah, while I still prefer Friendly Arm-ish look to it, I have to admit that Obsidian did a very good job arranging all the "stronghold" elements in such a fashion so that all are given their respective space.
 

[Posbi]

Thanks mate, much appreciated! 

 

Funny thing though, now that I rearanged the area within the walls I kind of understand the logic behind Obsidian design.

When there's just one huge fortified building that takes up so much space, there's really little you can do to to represent all the promised "components" of the stronghold.

I.e. I see how they needed to cater for the needs of many e.g. botanical garden/maze/forum etc. There needs to be place for all that stuff and all of it is equally important as some people will have fun growing poisonous plants, others hone their stealth skill in the maze (?) etc. etc.

The way I visualised it, imho only the warrior type character would be happy with it.

 

So yeah, while I still prefer Friendly Arm-ish look to it, I have to admit that Obsidian did a very good job arranging all the "stronghold" elements in such a fashion so that all are given their respective space.

 

Well, ironically the only counter I've got to that is that we've only seen a small glimpse of Obsidian's stronghold design, and that purely from a meta-perspective it'd make sense to place some elements differently.