Update #70: New Year Project Update

[pseudonymous]

You're right, it doesn't... except purely from a balancing standpoint.

 

I'm going to say this one more time, it is not a balance issue in a single player game.  It has never been a balance issue in a single player game.  It will never be a balance issue in a single player game.  It's an issue of game designers listening to the pin-heads from publishers that keep repeating this year's buzzwords (balance and accessibility) over gamers themselves and apparently believing that gamers are incapable of thinking tactically with their magic users.  Gamers are more than capable of changing tactics to deal with friendly fire from their mages.

 

There really is no reason to place an MMO mechanic that limits griefing into a single player game where griefing will never be a problem.

[Monte Carlo]

Sometimes, the simpler and cleverer you try to be, the more complex stuff ends up.

[craigdolphin]

Just wanted to stop by and say how much I enjoyed this update.

 

When I backed POE I hvae to admit there was a worm of doubt wriggling in my gut about how well the 2d-artwork would hold up. Well, the worm has officially turned. Now I am wondering when/if 3D worlds will look as good as the environments in this update. That area screenshot just makes me all warm and fuzzy. That said, seeing it in motion with animations etc will be the real test of how well they immerse the player.

 

The UI looks truly great too. So happy to see old school design polished and raised to this new level of excellence. Screw the minimalism and 'flat' design fad that's taken over the world in the last few years. This stuff is timeless and beautiful. Could not be more pleased.

 

I am not focussing on the nitty gritty of the stats themselves. Clearly there are more than enough people commenting on them in depth. I am happy to leave these aspects of balance etc to the devs best judgement.

 

The blue banshee monster thing-a-me looks really good, and really close to the concept art but I dunno...there's something not quite right (no, not the boobs...) It may just be the lack of translucency. Not sure. To be clear, this is a fantastic looking beastie and this is, in no way, a complaint.

 

All in all, this game is looking awesome. So awesome in fact that I think it's time to put a firm check on my own rising expectations. If you can really deliver on the promise that I see here....well. That would be something astounding. There are obviously a couple of design choices made that I could wish had gone differently (romances, RTWP combat, etc) but I am undeniably thrilled with the status of the overall project. I am going on record now that, if and when you decide to kickstart a sequel, I'm in.

[tajerio]

Sometimes, the simpler and cleverer you try to be, the more complex stuff ends up.

 

I think the problem here is that a high score in any attribute shouldn't penalize the character except in the form of the opportunity cost of not having more points in other attributes.  But in this case, a benefit of having a high INT comes with a cost also directly associated with having a high INT--the double-edged sword of bigger AoEs.  That makes the choice of high INT substantively different from the other choices of attribute in the game, which is obviously something that Josh wants to avoid.

 

To me, this is one of the cases in which the "sometimes" of your aphorism applies, since the elimination of the non-opportunity cost just results in a head-scratching subdivided radius solution.  My solution would be instead to get rid of the expanded AoE and figure out some other benefit to slap on INT.  Seems more elegant but possibly more difficult to work into the game as presently balanced.  

[Hassat Hunter]

I think the problem here is that a high score in any attribute shouldn't penalize the character except in the form of the opportunity cost of not having more points in other attributes.  But in this case, a benefit of having a high INT comes with a cost also directly associated with having a high INT--the double-edged sword of bigger AoEs.  That makes the choice of high INT substantively different from the other choices of attribute in the game, which is obviously something that Josh wants to avoid.

An alternative would be to have ALL stats have boons *and* cons. So say, more magic resistance may also harm allied spells being cast upon you.

 

So putting stat-points out isn't just a sum of "what will benefit me best" but a true pro/con eveluation per stat point. And no one true victor which is better than the rest, since the higher the boost, the higher the additional potential penalty.

[SirBlackjack]

Looks great. Can't wait.

[Lephys]

Man, you make a simple observation, and it simply MUST mean a bunch of other stuff.

 

@Hassat:

 

I never said balance was everything. Nor have I, in the least, suggested that balance is somehow more important than anything else, or that it somehow just provides a golden ticket to implement what turns out to be a bad design.

 

@pseudonymous:

 

It actually does, just not in the way you're arbitrarily assuming is the only possible way it can matter. In fact, it especially matters in an RPG, because it offers more variety of legitimate choice in conjunction with the guarantee you'll still be able to accomplish things, like beating the game. Thus, if they say "oh, don't worry, you can focus whichever way you want: single-target-only abilities, or AoE-only abilities, or any mix of the two! 8D!", then you pick as many AoE abilities as you can get your hands on, and you pump INT to improve your range, and now you can't NOT-hit the entire battlefield with half your abilities, well, then your choice turned into one between killing your allies along with your enemies, OR simply taking to the sidelines, resulting in the increased probability of your allies' deaths simply because you're not pulling your own weight in combat.

 

That being said, that STILL doesn't mean I'm saying "and therefore this is a good idea." I also think the safety-zone is, all things considered, a bad idea. That doesn't change the fact that there's a reason for Obsidian to even momentarily ponder it, if only long enough to say "No, that would be a bad idea, nevermind."

 

Maybe you find no value in a breakdown like that, but I'm not telling you to. It's pointless to say "well, if it's a bad idea, then obviously a bunch of simple truths are now false."

 

If you, or anyone else here, thinks my observations have no value, then ignore them. I promise it won't hurt my feelings. If my response had been "2 + 2 = 4," would you just ignore that, or would you say "Uhhh... this is a bad idea, and therefore 2 + 2 does NOT equal 4, dude...u_u"? I don't think so. So why argue simple observations?

Edited January 23, 2014 by Lephys

[Monte Carlo]

^ Lephys... Special Power: Mastery of Passive / Aggressive posting.

[tajerio]

^ Lephys... Special Power: Mastery of Passive / Aggressive posting.

 

 Embrace the Monte Carlo Way: There ain't no passive in this here aggression.

[Lephys]

I didn't know explaining observed misunderstandings and/or clarifying potential ones was passive/aggressive.

[Wombat]

There are poping up some posts which are built on imaginary arguments only in the posters' heads but if they jump at a tiny piece of the info, which the designers mentioned as WIP, there may be no wonder in such hasty actions...

D&D systems are full of "really stupid and illogical things."  If you don't think so, it's just because you are accustomed to them.  Some systems are more "realistic" or simulationist but they are, typically, harder to be translated into CRPG format.  That said, all RPG systems have more or less have some "stupid and illogical things" since they cannot be real world simulations, especially when they are put into formats which are easily calculated by average human beings.

Also, I think balancing is important in a subtle way since it allows the players to enjoy various choices on the same table rather than giving a handful of actual choices.  However, at the same time, I understand there are some factors which can break the suspension of disbelief for some people.  In fact, I, myself, must have my own subjective permissible range on it although, I guess, its relatively tolerant to D&D-ish gamist systems.

[rjshae]

Mmm... sometimes I wonder why they bother telling us anything at all.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Implementing a spell system where players can design their own spells would be a disaster. It would easily eviscerate any balance the game might possess, and likely be buggy beyond all belief. I also imagine that it would cripple the variety of spells possible, and those which were possibly would be far less unique. Furthermore, a toned-down system like this is already being created for the Chanter.

 

For similar reasons, I don't think it is a good idea to be able to toggle spell duration. A much simpler and better solution is to allow spells to be dismissed as in TOEE. Finally, I am in agreement that using a mousewheel to adjust the scope of a spell does seem practical, elegant, and tangible.

[Lephys]

Implementing a spell system where players can design their own spells would be a disaster.

Not necessarily, as you'd still be operating within the confines of the defined "design-a-spell" system. Of course, it would be tricky and complex to design in a super interesting fashion. But, it's not as if it would be "just write down whatever you want to exist, in the entire world, and the game is going to create that spell for you! 8D!" It's very much like character builds; you only get to choose from a limited set of options, already, but the specific way in which you allocate points and choose aspects/components can lead to a variety of different results.

 

For similar reasons, I don't think it is a good idea to be able to toggle spell duration. A much simpler and better solution is to allow spells to be dismissed as in TOEE.

Firstly, that would probably be a much easier way in which to achieve the desired result, I agree. But, for what it's worth, I think by "set durations," people meant as in, between the range of the minimum and the maximum, as already designated by the spell's properties. That does get really annoying in games, when you cast an also-harmful-to-friendlies Erupting Earth AoE spell or something, and it lasts for the next 2 minutes, straight, just 'cause you're really powerful. But, like you said, the real issue is its continuance when you no longer want it (as it's always going to start at the same time), so, being able to end a spell would be a much more efficient option.

[rjshae]

 

Implementing a spell system where players can design their own spells would be a disaster.

Not necessarily, as you'd still be operating within the confines of the defined "design-a-spell" system. Of course, it would be tricky and complex to design in a super interesting fashion. But, it's not as if it would be "just write down whatever you want to exist, in the entire world, and the game is going to create that spell for you! 8D!" It's very much like character builds; you only get to choose from a limited set of options, already, but the specific way in which you allocate points and choose aspects/components can lead to a variety of different results.

 

Yes. As an example, the HERO/Champions system has considerable flexibility in terms of designing your own powers/spells. But it is the result of many years of careful balancing and tuning.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

 

 

Implementing a spell system where players can design their own spells would be a disaster.

Not necessarily, as you'd still be operating within the confines of the defined "design-a-spell" system. Of course, it would be tricky and complex to design in a super interesting fashion. But, it's not as if it would be "just write down whatever you want to exist, in the entire world, and the game is going to create that spell for you! 8D!" It's very much like character builds; you only get to choose from a limited set of options, already, but the specific way in which you allocate points and choose aspects/components can lead to a variety of different results.

 

Yes. As an example, the HERO/Champions system has considerable flexibility in terms of designing your own powers/spells. But it is the result of many years of careful balancing and tuning.

 

On P:E budget, crew, and time constraints--yes, it would be a disaster. Design would be lengthy and arduous. Even making sufficient art for such a system would be incredible. Debugging and testing would need to be extensive. Development of such a system would likely impede progress on other game aspects, as they could not be designed properly until the spell system would be complete. Then there is expense again. Competely cost prohibitive for all of the reasons above and more. Furthermore, I hold a great deal of doubt that any system which will allow players to create spells would be able to produce much of interest, as it would have to be severely tweaked to keep it from being overly powerful and game breaking. Balancing that would be such a monumental task, that developers would likely err on caution and just have it be less interesting.

 

Perhaps for a sandbox RPG where developers spend all of their time on systems and need not worry about quests/plot/etc., yes. I would love to see something like that. Outside of a sandbox RPG though...I would not hold your breath--particularly for a game with P:E's scope and constraints.

[Lephys]

^ Agreed, for the most part. My apologies. I thought you were simply commenting on the very idea of a system that lets one "design a spell."

[Hassat Hunter]

Mmm... sometimes I wonder why they bother telling us anything at all.

 

To prevent them from implenting ideas the general focusgroup of their game are strongly against?

Like item degredation?

[rjshae]

 

Mmm... sometimes I wonder why they bother telling us anything at all.

 

To prevent them from implenting ideas the general focusgroup of their game are strongly against?

Like item degredation?

 

This isn't a "general focusgroup"; it's a vocal minority. Strong opposition by a vocal minority that often has more extreme views than the wider group often isn't a reliable poll sample.

 

But my comment was actually more about the general dickishness of some of the responses.

Edited January 24, 2014 by rjshae

[Hassat Hunter]

It is the 'minority' that helped raise the money to fund the game.

Which makes them... well... pretty important, wouldn't you say?

 

Especially if they want to fundraise another game this way...

Edited January 24, 2014 by Hassat Hunter

[rjshae]

It is the 'minority' that helped raise the money to fund the game.

Which makes them... well... pretty important, wouldn't you say?

 

Especially if they want to fundraise another game this way...

 

Wrong. The group that raised the money is the majority of the investors. You do not represent that group; you represent yourself. The number of posters raising objections to a specific topic in this thread are a minority. If the developers wanted to sample a majority of the investors, they would do random polling.

[StrangeCat]

 

It is the 'minority' that helped raise the money to fund the game.

Which makes them... well... pretty important, wouldn't you say?

 

Especially if they want to fundraise another game this way...

 

Wrong. The group that raised the money is the majority of the investors. You do not represent that group; you represent yourself. The number of posters raising objections to a specific topic in this thread are a minority. If the developers wanted to sample a majority of the investors, they would do random polling.

 

you are very wise^_-

[Hassat Hunter]

Wrong. The group that raised the money is the majority of the investors. You do not represent that group; you represent yourself. The number of posters raising objections to a specific topic in this thread are a minority. If the developers wanted to sample a majority of the investors, they would do random polling.

Many of them which are on this forum. All of them should be even, since they require an OE-account for the backer portal.

 

As for 'objecting being a minority' actually amongst the ones who responded in reply to J.E. Sawyer the majority wasn't positive about the idea, very few came out positive for it. Now this might trigger a 'still minority of backers to vote negative' reply, but it remains of the backers replying the majority is against it. Would it be too far-fedged that this would be the same share of proportians amongst all backers?

It very well could be...

[tajerio]

 

Wrong. The group that raised the money is the majority of the investors. You do not represent that group; you represent yourself. The number of posters raising objections to a specific topic in this thread are a minority. If the developers wanted to sample a majority of the investors, they would do random polling.

Many of them which are on this forum. All of them should be even, since they require an OE-account for the backer portal.

 

As for 'objecting being a minority' actually amongst the ones who responded in reply to J.E. Sawyer the majority wasn't positive about the idea, very few came out positive for it. Now this might trigger a 'still minority of backers to vote negative' reply, but it remains of the backers replying the majority is against it. Would it be too far-fedged that this would be the same share of proportians amongst all backers?

It very well could be...

 

 

It *could* be, but there's absolutely no way to know.  This game has 75,000 backers.  Nothing even close to a representative number of those people post on these fora, and I'm very willing to bet that nothing even close to a representative number of those people read these fora either.

 

The absolute most one can say about this forum community in terms of representation is that it is the group of people who are most inclined to voice their opinions.  

[rjshae]

 

Wrong. The group that raised the money is the majority of the investors. You do not represent that group; you represent yourself. The number of posters raising objections to a specific topic in this thread are a minority. If the developers wanted to sample a majority of the investors, they would do random polling.

Many of them which are on this forum. All of them should be even, since they require an OE-account for the backer portal.

 

As for 'objecting being a minority' actually amongst the ones who responded in reply to J.E. Sawyer the majority wasn't positive about the idea, very few came out positive for it. Now this might trigger a 'still minority of backers to vote negative' reply, but it remains of the backers replying the majority is against it. Would it be too far-fedged that this would be the same share of proportians amongst all backers?

It very well could be...

 

Statisticians are wary of such assumptions; for reliable results it's good to avoid personal biases and use independent checks. Those who are the most vocal tend to be those who have the most to gain by swaying the majority to a different opinion. That doesn't make them representative of the majority--just noisy.

 

Personally I was in favor of the weapon wear option, so I remain unconvinced that the right outcome was achieved. But so be it.