Update #70: New Year Project Update

[Adam Brennecke]

I'm really happy that everyone likes the update! I'm enjoying reading the discussion.

 

*goes back to work*

[Metabot]

Man go home! lol

[Lephys]

D&D is a disease that has poluted the minds of everyone who's come across it. It should be treated like a band-aid and all mention of it ripped from any future fantasy RPG.

Umm... I was just using D&D as an example. I don't think D&D is the end-all-be-all of how to perfectly do things. That being said, where do you think D&D got the idea for its stats? From some OTHER game that was obviously the REAL root of the problem? Or by asking "Hmm... what's an attribute that affects what people can and cannot do?"

 

 

Who says that "strength, dex, intellect, wisdom, etc" are attributes even worth defining, for your character? Why strength but not education? Both are improvable with practice, in any world. Why not beauty? Why not personality as an attribute? Resourcefulness or cleverness? Wit? Any arbitrary attribute could be used. Outside of some interesting mechanic, they sort of mix and muddy the picture. What if all stats were just colors instead of "attributes"?

 

Umm... Education does exist. But it's not a stat. You're not born with education. You don't develop education by existing and reaching adulthood. There's something in RPG rulesets called knowledge skills. They are categorical ratings of your knowledge. Ergo, your education. Resourcefulness is represented by a combination of Intellect (your raw thinking power) and your knowledge. If you don't know anything about a metal rod, or physics, for example, then you can't resourcefully use it in any capacity. Again, people aren't just born with "resourcefulness." That's simply a specialization of Intellect. How important is it, really, to measure "wit," by itself? Really, what all does that affect? Besides, it, TOO, is represented in the game. You can't make clever/witty comebacks if you don't possess the knowledge of words and intelligence required to establish the connections between the words. Thus, it's not its very own stat, but it's not absent from the ruleset.

 

Yes, things are abstracted. Beauty is (at least in D&D) under the Charisma umbrella. In Arcanum, it's a separate thing.

 

The thing is, there's something inherent to video games and our idea of entertainment that makes most of us not want to play something with 72 stats. So, things are simplified, and abstract. It makes perfect sense that Intellect allows my character to do things that require brain power. I think we, the players of the game, are more than capable of imagining the specifics from there, under the specific situation. Also, the writers help by providing details of what to do.

 

The goal isn't to create virtual reality that we then watch. It's simply to create a world that makes sense to us, so that we can control people-who-are-not-us in adventures we're not actually having and/or could never have in the real world.

 

Is it really that difficult to figure out what's "worthy" of even potentially being a stat, and what isn't? This group of people have all been beaten every day for the last week, and that guy on the end is STILL getting back up. Endurance. Boom. I measured something that significantly affected someone's capabilities, and named it. I don't think it's really that complex. Then, it just comes down to making sure that your number-of-stats restriction (again, for simplicity's sake) covers a good range of character measurements. You wouldn't want to have all physical and no mental measurements, for example. "Is someone smarter, or quicker-thinking? WHO KNOWS! 8D!"

 

You're representing a world pretty close to the real one, in terms of how things generally work:

 

The people are humanoid. They breathe atmosphere. Gravity holds them to the ground. They grow food and eat, and live in houses they construct, and people start wars and fight about things, and use resources as real-life humans would if they had all those resources (including soul-magic and the like). It's not as if its preposterous to look to reality to analyze what to represent and what not to, when that's the design of the game.

 

In the world of PoE, people do have strength and use that physical strength to get their jobs done. But people are probably resourceful too and just because one attribute isn't in the system doesn't mean it doesn't exist in the game.

Actually, it kind of does. o_o

Edited January 15, 2014 by Lephys

[Azure79]

I am really scared of those female ghosts that die tragic deaths and come back to haunt the living.

 

I couldn't sleep soundly for days after watching certain Japanese horror flicks. 

 

I'm looking forward to being scared in certain areas of the game. 

 

I can't wait ti get my hands on this game. 

[Metabot]

iemon!! iemon!!! iemon!!

[Falkon Swiftblade]

Update by Brandon Adler, Producer

 

 

Hooray for a really interesting update! Good work Obsidian. 

 

 

1) The Ancient Engwithan ruins near Twin Elms above looks really lovely, I especially like that the rocks show depth and look 3d, and the environmental scenery is beautiful. I hope the final version may include blown leaves going across the screen. A few things that kinda seem jarring to me though that I can't put my finger on that may just be a specific art style you're going for, but I feel a sense of dissonance when I look at it. For example I think it may just be the texture pattern used in the art, the big rocks look legit, the small rocks seem a little too samey. I think the tile pattern is too similar to be repeated so close to each other. Also why are there so many arches broken, in almost the same spot? That's just weird. It looks cool kinda, but functionally they seem arbitrarily placed to fill up space. Maybe have a meeting with your team and ask them why does x need 30 broken arches in the same place? Could it just be 3? That could be the designer in me asking, I just don't see that occurring in nature around me.

 

2) The character update was a great improvement from older character models we saw in engine. This one almost has enough detail to feel unique from another beasty next to her. I'm satisfied with that level of polish for an alpha pass. Josh mentioned they're probably going to make a shader to change her to seem more ghostly, is it a lot of work to make a command that randomly tweaks creatures skin tone in a specific hue or saturation level by a tiny amount? I'm just curious because I hate how games have been out for like 50 years and any time there's more than one baddy of the same type they have to look the same, unless it's a low level, mid and high level fighting together who are black, red, and green. Could we possibly have random hues and color shifts of the blacks, reds, and greens just to give the creatures some personality or diversity?

3) The UI update was a nice surprise. I really love the skin of the ui, I love creating ui skins and all that kinda stuff. One suggestion is to allow for tool tips when we hover to help in usability, or even simplify it more by using much of the same info by hovering over related content elsewhere. One way could be highlighting a chest piece that shows the stat's but changes the # value, like green/blue for better and grey/red for worse. It's nice to have that kind of level of info, but what is the pace of the game going to be like? Is this meant to be a min/max game? It's wonderful to have that option, but it appears that players have the option of choosing to play a wide spectrum of 6 play styles each, and I wonder if that level of micromanagement will remove our minds from the flow of the narrative and game play? It takes the focus off playing the game, and more in the role of playing cards or something. Maybe that's really appealing to people. You guys are the pro's. I'm not complaining though, just saying it's pretty, but there's just a mad amount of info, and I wonder do we really need to know it all, or could there be more done under the hood and have an option to turn it on in leu of messing with the combat flow. 

 

Also I'm a bit behind on how all the attributes work, thank you for explaining a few of them in this thread, but it was mentioned that Animation annotations were added to Unity. "We can now call sound effects based on specific frames of animation." Does that mean hypothetically, you can choose specific frames or animations to change now too? I thought it would always be really awesome if our attributes changed the way our animations worked. Intel may change the way we gesture when we talk for example or toss spells, dexterity would of course change the way we walk or dodge. If you had a really low dexterity, then you probably stumble a lot when you walk, or you seem very fluid and agile if it was high. Maybe other attributes would be a mixture of combat animations and social animations that influence the animations based upon the attributes we choose to increase. It would have to be a collaborative process. If that's too much, could you consider creating an alternative themed animation set that might be the same, just timed differently to emphasize maybe a more angry caster vs someone who doesn't know how to shoot a magic missile and it knocks her back a step every time? That's more relatable to how I envision someone starting out, vs a higher level character who has more control over their power. Just have fun with it!

 

 

 

Edited January 15, 2014 by Falkon Swiftblade

[Cabal]

The backing page now works fine.

And so I spent some extra money for the digital addon and the beta access...

 

It's the first time I'm paying 25 bucks to play a beta, but this is to support you guys. So don't disappoint me

[Falkon Swiftblade]

deleted double post

[Boox]

Thanks for the great update!

 

The character sheet and ruins look amazing! I assume Kaz made the UI mock-up so: Awesome job, Kaz! I think that you guys and gals are really nailing all the different visual aspects of a true successor to the IE games. I am very happy that I backed this project I really like the god concept art too and the Devil of Caroc intrigues me, as well. Every update is making me more and more excited. I can't wait for the next update

 

Now it's time to go speculate some more in the ranger thread.

 

Edit: I just wanted to add that I'm digging the experience bar on the character sheet, very cool.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Boox

[Valorian]

 

...

Who says that "strength, dex, intellect, wisdom, etc" are attributes even worth defining, for your character? Why strength but not education?

 

 

Strength/dex/intellect are important attributes because you'll probably spend half of the game fighting.

 

Anyhow, I'll just find it odd to see a mighty gelatinous cube with the same attributes of a powerful wizard. Both excellent at what they do, one hits you hard with spells, the other hits you hard with slime. I guess 'coz soul power.

[PrimeJunta]

Why would a gelatinous cube even have attributes?

[Valorian]

Why would a gelatinous cube even have attributes?

 

Because attributes have the function of defining a creature, both for mechanical and RP purposes.

[PrimeJunta]

Why would you want to role-play a gelatinous cube?

 

Since in interaction with a creature, only the derived values (accuracy, DT, damage, etc.) matter, why not just set them directly? Seems simpler that way.

[Valorian]

Why would you want to role-play a gelatinous cube?

 

Since in interaction with a creature, only the derived values (accuracy, DT, damage, etc.) matter, why not just set them directly? Seems simpler that way.

 

A gelatinous cube is as much part of a fantasy universe as a skeleton warrior or a mage or a person asking obtuse questions (like that guy in Nashkel, BG, for example).

You probably won't be able to communicate with a gelatinous cube, because it'll have an exceptionally low intellect stat. Just because a creature can't communicate with people doesn't mean it shouldn't be defined by attributes.

 

I don't really think they'd do something as shallow and just throw in combat stats for creatures, leaving everything else undefined. Interaction with creatures doesn't necessarily mean combat.

[Messier-31]

Yup, that's eye-candy all right.

 

PS: Pallegina, rofl.

[PrimeJunta]

You still don't need the attributes for critters/NPC's to interact with them. You only need target numbers which can be assigned directly. Non-combat interaction is mostly dialog anyway, and dialog nodes with stat checks would certainly have the stat check assigned directly to the node rather than derived from the NPC you're talking to. 

 

There are major downsides to giving critters/NPC's attributes. It introduces unnecessary complexity. You're never interacting with the attributes directly anyway, only with the stats derived from them. There's no way you'd ever know what the attributes are even if they were defined, unless the game explicitly told you what they are.

 

For example, critter stats would make it more difficult to balance the game overall, because any changes to them will affect both sides.

 

To illustrate: suppose you decide that combat is too easy, because your characters finish off the opposition too quickly, so you decide to shift the Damage effect of Might from 3% per point to 2% per point. However, if the critters and NPC's also have Might, you've adjusted their damage down symmetrically. To offset this, you'd have to adjust their Might or base damage up individually. Fiddly.

 

Many RPG systems are asymmetrical this way. D&D only introduced stats for monsters in 3d edition. Numenera is completely asymmetrical (NPC's/critters only have level and health).

 

I would be very surprised if PoE does have attributes for NPC's or critters. They add complexity but don't let you do anything that you couldn't do by assigning target numbers directly.

[IndiraLightfoot]

The character sheet looks sensational!

I love the new attribute system

Cool-looking reputation system, especially that "oddity" label

The ruins are stunning

The banshee creatures are right up my alley

 

One caveat: "Pallegina", a bit too corny name for my taste. Sounds like a salty cracker.

[Sedrefilos]

Super great stuff! Keep it up!

[Valorian]

You still don't need the attributes for critters/NPC's to interact with them. You only need target numbers which can be assigned directly. Non-combat interaction is mostly dialog anyway, and dialog nodes with stat checks would certainly have the stat check assigned directly to the node rather than derived from the NPC you're talking to. 

 

There are major downsides to giving critters/NPC's attributes. It introduces unnecessary complexity. You're never interacting with the attributes directly anyway, only with the stats derived from them. There's no way you'd ever know what the attributes are even if they were defined, unless the game explicitly told you what they are.

 

For example, critter stats would make it more difficult to balance the game overall, because any changes to them will affect both sides.

 

To illustrate: suppose you decide that combat is too easy, because your characters finish off the opposition too quickly, so you decide to shift the Damage effect of Might from 3% per point to 2% per point. However, if the critters and NPC's also have Might, you've adjusted their damage down symmetrically. To offset this, you'd have to adjust their Might or base damage up individually. Fiddly.

 

Many RPG systems are asymmetrical this way. D&D only introduced stats for monsters in 3d edition. Numenera is completely asymmetrical (NPC's/critters only have level and health).

 

I would be very surprised if PoE does have attributes for NPC's or critters. They add complexity but don't let you do anything that you couldn't do by assigning target numbers directly.

 

I'd be very surprised if NPCs end up not having attributes.

 

PoE will have symmetrical combat mechanics.

As an example, eliminating attributes for enemies would make lowering enemy attributes with spells and abilities impossible. Making opposed attribute checks would also be impossible.

I don't think attribute-less enemies would be easier to balance, considering that the player character and party members would be in a different universe mechanically.

 

BG2 has.. *opening the creature editor* .. 4689 creature entries. All of them have all 6 attribute slots filled.

[Lioness]

Thanks for the update the char sheet was very informative... The Elapsed Time, Travel Time are oddly specific, I must add.

[PrimeJunta]

PoE will have symmetrical combat mechanics.

Will it? Not sure about this, but I seem to remember it being mentioned that critters don't have stamina, only health. That would indicate asymmetrical mechanics. Do you have a source?

 

As an example, eliminating attributes for enemies would make lowering enemy attributes with spells and abilities impossible. Making opposed attribute checks would also be impossible.

Not at all. The spells/abilities would simply affect the derived stats directly. So a "Ray of Enfeeblement" spell where the description says "lowers Might by 5 points" would actually lower Damage and Healing by the appropriate amount. You'd just be doing the arithmetic in the spell.

 

I don't think attribute-less enemies would be easier to balance, considering that the player character and party members would be in a different universe mechanically.

That's not my experience from GM'ing various PnP systems. I find asymmetrical mechanics way easier to balance since I'm only adjusting one side of the equation at a time.

 

BG2 has.. *opening the creature editor* .. 4689 creature entries. All of them have all 6 attribute slots filled.

Must've been a BG2 addition. I just checked the AD&D Monster Manuals. They only list intelligence, with first edition having a verbal description (Low, Animal, Average, High, Very High etc.), and second edition having a numeric range in parentheses after it. No other attributes are listed.

[Sensuki]

fantastic update!

 

btw if kaz sees this:

a less rugged surface for the text box in the UI would give a more carved look while being a little easier on the eyes.

on the other hand, the rough surface gives a pirate chest sorta look and maybe that's what you're going for.

 

aggravating fan-who-thinks-he-knows-**** PS edit below :D

They don't really need the double spacing either. Just creates more scrolling.

[steelshark]

Very Interesting. It feels like it's coming together.

 

On the point of "Might":

Like others have mentioned already it seems a bit odd that it governs physical and mental "Strength".

I'd rather have more attributes, that have very clear purposes than less which may be compounds of attributes.

ie.: You could have 1 "Body" attribute to describe how tough, strong, fast etc. you are. But I'd rather have separated attributes.

I'm not saying that there should be 20, but instead of the traditional 6 why not go for 10? It could even work like GURPS where some attributes depend on others > Perception based on Intelligence, but still separately modifiable.

 

br,

Steel

 

edit:

regarding symetrical or asymetrical stats:

Please, for the love of everything that you consider valuable or holy:

Use a symetrical system, meaning everything has the same "framework" of stats.

An Ogre should not deal massive damage because the monster-entry says +massive damage, but because he has massive strength. If Ogres are "too strong" you could still lower it's strength. No need to adjust the effects of the attribute itself.

Edited January 15, 2014 by steelshark

[ryukenden]

I like what they did with the UI so far.  Its familiar with infinity games in a  good way.  However, I think they should experiment with different types color/texture on the wood background.  This would help the make the game feels more vibrant and alive rather than dull.  Not only that, its makes the fonts more visible. In turn the buttons and labels pop out more distinguishing from the stats.  

 

BTW, I love the xp bar and the parchment paper.  

Edited January 15, 2014 by ryukenden

[PoulWrist]

Cool Good to hear progress is continuing steadily into 2014