Update #70: New Year Project Update

[rjshae]

 

We are looking into either allowing you to scale the effect size or have the "bonus" area be a foe-only AoE.  E.g., if you cast fireball and it normally has a radius of 4m, but it's grown to 6.5m because of your Int, the area added between 4m and 6.5m only affects enemies.  We probably won't get to it for a while, but we've been thinking about it.

If you can't create a scale system i would prefer if it just hit everything. I think it would get pretty confusing on finding where the boundary of the safe zone will be, especially if you have wider blast animations with every new point to Int.

Also not fan of the idea that the reason you don't get hurt outside of 4m zone is "just because".

 

It's a nice idea to have a foe-only fringe on an AoE, but the approach also seems counter-intuitive (which is why I didn't just support it).

[Falkon Swiftblade]

you know a skill I don't recall seeing being used as much any more is one that allows you to take possession of a creature and attack his peers. I liked riding the troll guy in Batman while he bashed the goons that were coming after me. I'm not sure where that would fit in the attributes, but if there's room for that type of persuasion, that would be fun.

[ItinerantNomad]

I don't support foe-only AoE either. Make the risk/benefit of getting increasing INT interesting enough so that you do't have to do this work-around. If it's Aoe, it should be Aoe.

[ZornWO]

I haven't seen the post but someone said that there was discussion about the arches in the screenshot.  I'm not sure if you can see the details of the arches, but the stones are actually held together with adra.  Adra is a grown, shell-like substance that the Engwithans used both as structural elements and for binding purposes in their architecture.  Often they would build things like traditional stone arches and grow adra in-between, using it like slow-growing mortar.  As their buildings fall apart, it results in impossible-looking/gravity-defying ruins.

 

I was just thinking last night of a medieval Muslim trading city on an island off the SE coast of Africa, which built these big domed buildings made out of coral.  Google's reminding me the name was Kilwa Kisiwani.  I love this type of thing and that the explanation for the Engwithan ruins is an organic ingredient.  Thanks for opting for "impossible" structures.

[rjshae]

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like your Accuracy rating is what allows you to target your AoE to hit your foes and miss your friends. Shrug. But it would be cool to have more control over your AoE with higher Int. Not sure how that would be done though.

[rdmcnz]

I like the idea of a mage being skilled enough to fashion a fireball larger than normal by having it burst towards foes rather than friends.
AoE as normal, then enhanced beyond that to something much better - all through having a better INT stat. If the animation could show that - amazing, but I would not expect that. My imagination though can understand how this casting would work. Massive explosion of force, followed by gaining some control over it.

 

Josh, has any work been put towards a spell like fireball filling a certain area, and hence if cast in a corridor expanding further down the corridor than the normal range of the spell?

 

I imagine this could prove quite tricky coding wise, but your team's minds are working magic so far!
(bad pun, sorry, so sorry - serious about the praise though)

[Lephys]

I'm not fond of the idea of the ability to somehow generate a fiery explosion or frost nova that dodges all your friends. Why even make it an explosion/nova at that point, if you just want to hit things with fire/ice/what-have-you and only hit selective things?

 

Now, game difficulty abstractly removing something like friendly fire from AOEs, I'm fine with, because it's not "your character can somehow control his spell to a meticulous degree," but rather "this is easier this way, and this is Easy difficulty." But, it's a bit contradictory to say "You can cast this spell designed to hit everything in a big circle/area, but also selectively make it not-hit very specific locations within that." That kind of contradicts the very design of area-targeting, as opposed to individual target targeting (even if it's multiple targets, targeting entities specifically at their locations).

 

For the INT effect on AoE area size, the main thing is being able to control the size, if that's possible to do easily. INT giving a bonus to AoE size shouldn't really be an against-your-will bonus to the size. I mean, if you can make a 10-foot-radius fiery explosion, you can probably make a smaller one, right? If I can throw a rock 10 yards, then I can obviously just throw a little softer and toss it 5 yards, if I really want to.

 

So, yeah, I'm not at all worried about the extra range somehow not hitting friendlies. The spell should either hit friendlies or not. The whole spell. But, I do think it makes sense and would be very useful to be able to, say, click and drag -- from a minimum size to a maximum size (difference between the base size and the INT bonus size) -- the actual area of the AoE spell in question.

 

That would be really nice, and if there's some way to prevent an AoE spell from affecting your peers, then so be it. But, I don't think the two are related, except in that "I can control this to aim it more precisely" manner. It's one thing to hit 5 enemies in a cluster, but controllably contain the magical blast so that it stops before striking your 3 allies standing just outside the edge of the blast, and another to just somehow bend a big, radial blast around specific targets, then merge it back together behind them so that it strikes even foes further out. Again, if you only wanted to hit specific targets, why would you use a spell that uses magical energies to functionally replicate a grenade blast anyway? You wouldn't throw a grenade at your friends, expecting it to just miss them. You'd probably fire arrows just at the foes, etc.

[ItinerantNomad]

That is actually a great idea Lephys.

[Metabot]

 

Not that I care either way, and I like it, but honesty time: did you come up with that solely to address this issue?

(I like the attention to detail though)

 

 

The concept of adra was developed early on as a not-quite magical material that had some interesting properties.  I like being able to have "impossible" structures, but I don't like hand-waving their impossibility away.

 

 

I don't really think it's impossible either way, those blocks aren't very large in the first place. Either way, screw the haters, it is what it is so tell them to shove off.

[ShadySands]

We are looking into either allowing you to scale the effect size or have the "bonus" area be a foe-only AoE.  E.g., if you cast fireball and it normally has a radius of 4m, but it's grown to 6.5m because of your Int, the area added between 4m and 6.5m only affects enemies.  We probably won't get to it for a while, but we've been thinking about it.

 

I love this idea and hope it gets implemented

[Lephys]

That is actually a great idea Lephys.

Thanks. In terms of functionality/ease-of-use, I've just seen it in action in Black And White 2. When constructing fields and meadows, you just click and hold at the center, then drag out or in (up or down, I believe) to either expand the size of the field (radially), or shrink it. Then, when you let go, the field size is set and the field is constructed.

 

Nevermind that fields aren't really "constructed." You're a deity in that game, for god's (see what I did there?) sake!

 

But, yeah, you'd probably want to pause to adjust the radius/size, but not necessarily. And, even so, I can't really think of a way to be able to adjust something like that when using an ability that doesn't make it take just a bit longer to do.

[Silent Winter]

So they're that way on purpose. Well that is rather awesome.

 

Yep - it's this attention to world building that gives me great confidence that the PE world will be one worth exploring.

You wouldn't throw a grenade at your friends, expecting it to just miss them. You'd probably fire arrows just at the foes, etc.

yep ... but then I'd hit my friends with the arrows too

Luckily, in PE, my archer will have a better accuracy score than me

 

Anyhoo - agree that AOE should be either party-friendly or not, not based on the extra size of the blast/whatever.

Is it not easy enough to have 'click for centre, move mouse to adjust size, click again to fire?'  for the interface? (we're getting a TOEE style marker to show area of effect AFAIK). and then have the computer calculate the animation size/who gets hit?

Edit: read Lehpy's post more carefully, already suggested the click-drag, so yeah, that's what I'd prefer.

Edited January 18, 2014 by Silent Winter

[Lephys]

Another factor that might matter is (at least on radially explosive effects) zones. Maybe the edge of the blast deals diminished damage, as compared to the center. Then it's a matter of intelligently using the specifics of that ability to your advantage to mitigate damage to friendlies. Of course, this is also why I'd like to see a lot more control of placement, rather than just "Lemme run my character away from this foe, wait 'til he follows, then stop, turn around, and get back on the other side of him, all the while getting thwacked in the back of the head, just so I can affect this enemy's position" stuff. I mean, the Rogue's Reversal ability is a prime example of how to allow for such things. It's the, essentially, prepared action that allows the Rogue to counter the next attack, roll 180-degrees around the target (behind them/to the other side of them, basically), and I think deliver an attack? The important thing is the movement. If you had a cluster of Rogues, each fighting an enemy, for example, they could all use that at the same time, and they'd suddenly all be OUTSIDE the rough ring of enemies, allowing someone else to blast the enemies with a precise enough radial AoE ability.

 

Also, there could be simple defensive stances/abilities to use. If an explosion's going to occur near a Warrior, you'd think he could kind of "entrench" himself (crouch/kneel and put his shield into the ground, lean forward a bit to compensate for the coming blast, etc.) to at least lessen the effects of the blast on him. Instead of just standing there and continuing to fight, catching shrapnel and fiery blast and all and being dashed against the ground, etc. Or, if a hail of ice spikes is going to rain from the sky, and he knows about it, he could raise his shield above his head, as against an arrow barrage. *shrug*

 

I realize I'm describing very specific, ehh, simulations, almost, of real-life maneuvers. I'm not trying to suggest we need to emulate any little nuanced thing one could possibly do in real life in a given situation, but rather, the types of capabilities we might could derive in-game abilities from that would make sense. Even abstraction needs a basis. 8P

 

Also, though, I'd like to see a lot more creative shapes and functions for AoE spells, rather than just simply "a solid-shape area of effect and that's that." For example, a spell that places a ring of lightning, but leaves everything inside of it and outside of it untouched. You could easily clump your allies together, then cast that around them. Now, at the very least, it buys you time against the melee assailants if they hesitate to enter it, or fries the crap out of them if they DO enter it. As for INT's effect on that, it could make it a thicker band of lightning or something. And, things like chain lightning, or other such multi-target (but not really area) abilities, INT could affect the number of targets, distance the bolt (in the chain lightning example) will travel, etc.

 

And finally, to clarify, I just want to re-iterate that I'm not against any AoE spells dodging friendlies. But, again, if it's an explosion, or "the floor becomes lava within this circle" or something, and not just "you're going to affect as many hostile targets as you can, but only so many within a certain area, as dictated by this circle," then it needs to affect the whole area and not magically dodge your allies.

Edited January 18, 2014 by Lephys

[Ineth]

I do think it makes sense and would be very useful to be able to, say, click and drag -- from a minimum size to a maximum size (difference between the base size and the INT bonus size) -- the actual area of the AoE spell in question.

 

How about:

1. click the spell icon in question
2. move the mouse to the target area
3. scroll the mouse wheel to decrease the AoE size (optionally, of course - the maximum AoE should be used by default)
4. click to fire the spell

This would feel more natural and convenient to me than click-and-drag.

 

Also, it avoids the situation where you started a click-and-drag, only to realize that the AoE doesn't fit at that position (max still too small, or min still too big) in order to achieve what you want, but you can't move it anymore because releasing the mouse button would fire the spell.

 

This is a PC game after all, so why not make good use of PC input devices!

[AndreaColombo]

 

How about:

1. click the spell icon in question
2. move the mouse to the target area
3. scroll the mouse wheel to decrease the AoE size (optionally, of course - the maximum AoE should be used by default)
4. click to fire the spell

This would feel more natural and convenient to me than click-and-drag.

 

Brilliant!

 

My only concern would be if the mousewheel was destined to zooming in and out, although I guess you could always assign zoom (or AoE size) to a different key in the game's options.

[the.only.ara54]

I was a bit afraid concerning the game UI. It looks great! I love it. Of course, it's still under development but I'm really enthusiastic!

As always, the areas are also gorgeous. Good job everyone, great update

[snorgle]

Looks great!

[Monocled Gamer]

 

Not that I care either way, and I like it, but honesty time: did you come up with that solely to address this issue?

(I like the attention to detail though)

 

 

The concept of adra was developed early on as a not-quite magical material that had some interesting properties.  I like being able to have "impossible" structures, but I don't like hand-waving their impossibility away.

 

Unfortunately your secret is out, Mr Sawyer. Those friendly folks at the RPGCodex have published the inside story behind your Adra concept:

 

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/pillars-of-eternity-kickstarter-update-70-screenshots-stats-and-stuff.89119/page-5#post-3061980

[DCParry]

 

 

Not that I care either way, and I like it, but honesty time: did you come up with that solely to address this issue?

(I like the attention to detail though)

 

 

The concept of adra was developed early on as a not-quite magical material that had some interesting properties.  I like being able to have "impossible" structures, but I don't like hand-waving their impossibility away.

 

Unfortunately your secret is out, Mr Sawyer. Those friendly folks at the RPGCodex have published the inside story behind your Adra concept:

 

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/pillars-of-eternity-kickstarter-update-70-screenshots-stats-and-stuff.89119/page-5#post-3061980

 

 

Seriously, no wonder everyone hates that place. 

[Metabot]

Honestly why do people care about ruined arches that should a few less stones maybe just maybe.

[lolaldanee]

 

 

 

Not that I care either way, and I like it, but honesty time: did you come up with that solely to address this issue?

(I like the attention to detail though)

 

 

The concept of adra was developed early on as a not-quite magical material that had some interesting properties.  I like being able to have "impossible" structures, but I don't like hand-waving their impossibility away.

 

Unfortunately your secret is out, Mr Sawyer. Those friendly folks at the RPGCodex have published the inside story behind your Adra concept:

 

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/pillars-of-eternity-kickstarter-update-70-screenshots-stats-and-stuff.89119/page-5#post-3061980

 

 

Seriously, no wonder everyone hates that place. 

 

indeed

i actually clicked that link and read a few posts, now i feel the need to clean myself

good lord, disgusting

[ItinerantNomad]

 

 

Not that I care either way, and I like it, but honesty time: did you come up with that solely to address this issue?

(I like the attention to detail though)

 

 

The concept of adra was developed early on as a not-quite magical material that had some interesting properties.  I like being able to have "impossible" structures, but I don't like hand-waving their impossibility away.

 

Unfortunately your secret is out, Mr Sawyer. Those friendly folks at the RPGCodex have published the inside story behind your Adra concept:

 

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/pillars-of-eternity-kickstarter-update-70-screenshots-stats-and-stuff.89119/page-5#post-3061980

 

calling yourself a "monocled gamer" is the furthest thing from being monocled. go back to your regular account and stop using this alt if you have any self-respect.

Edited January 18, 2014 by ItinerantNomad

[Monocled Gamer]

calling yourself a "monocled gamer" is the furthest thing from being monocled. go back to your regular account and stop using this alt if you have any self-respect.

 

I guess I have as much self-respect as someone with a whole 37 posts who gets VERY UPSET about a name used on an internet forum?

 

Seriously, get some perspective on life. We're talking about games here - you know, entertaining activities?

[Falkon Swiftblade]

all I called into question regarding the stones when I spoke of it was why all 30 or whatever of them were falling apart in the same place? It seemed like mad overkill on the prop and they could have just used like 3 arches and made it interesting. 

[PrimeJunta]

I'm sure the good folks at the 'dex are crushed by all this disapproval. Crushed!