On solutions

[khalil]

It's already been stated that not all problems in PoE can be solved with diplomacy.
This worries me, as I've played a large amount of games where diplomacy is a token decoration, whereas every problem can be solved by stabbing things until they stop moving.
Is there any chance of problems that can only be solved with diplomacy, or will everything be possible to solve via knives?

[Sir Chaox]

Is there any chance of problems that can only be solved with diplomacy, or will everything be possible to solve via knives?

 

I think they are trying to avoid scenarios that involve only one path for success.

 

There is also stealth, a valid path that is neither combat nor diplomacy. Outside of those 3 major options, perhaps specific cases allow you to use particular skills or spells to get by without combat.

 

I am certain all quests will be solvable through combat in some way... Not sure if the other paths will always be viable but an alternative should exist.

[khalil]

 

Is there any chance of problems that can only be solved with diplomacy, or will everything be possible to solve via knives?

 

I think they are trying to avoid scenarios that involve only one path for success.

 

There is also stealth, a valid path that is neither combat nor diplomacy. Outside of those 3 major options, perhaps specific cases allow you to use particular skills or spells to get by without combat.

 

I am certain all quests will be solvable through combat in some way... Not sure if the other paths will always be viable but an alternative should exist.

 

Sigh. I hate games where stealth/diplomacy is a waste and only works half the time whereas shooting people has a 100% success rate.

Look at the trial in NWN2. If you're a fighter, than you just go straight to trial by combat. If you're a rogue who invested points in social skills, then you spend a lot of time faffing about before you end up in the trial by combat anyway, even though the fighter got to skip the stuff he sucked at.

[Sir Chaox]

 

 

 

Is there any chance of problems that can only be solved with diplomacy, or will everything be possible to solve via knives?

 

I think they are trying to avoid scenarios that involve only one path for success.

 

There is also stealth, a valid path that is neither combat nor diplomacy. Outside of those 3 major options, perhaps specific cases allow you to use particular skills or spells to get by without combat.

 

I am certain all quests will be solvable through combat in some way... Not sure if the other paths will always be viable but an alternative should exist.

 

Sigh. I hate games where stealth/diplomacy is a waste and only works half the time whereas shooting people has a 100% success rate.

Look at the trial in NWN2. If you're a fighter, than you just go straight to trial by combat. If you're a rogue who invested points in social skills, then you spend a lot of time faffing about before you end up in the trial by combat anyway, even though the fighter got to skip the stuff he sucked at.

 

 

Well there are certain advantages to using stealth prior to combat (scouting, backstabbing/flanking opponents, or simply circumventing them altogether if you can). Diplomacy might give you an advantage (gain allies or avoid combat altogether). But at the end of the day, fighting will solve most situations in a typical RPG quest, so it makes sense to make it the lowest common denominator a majority of the time. It isn't exactly a good thing if stealth or diplomacy always gives you a 100% chance to complete a quest. Player skill gets taken into account during stealth, so if you are not careful in your movements, it might be your own fault you fail. And I know they are trying to avoid "one button win" scenarios with diplomacy, though maybe a few of those will still be in the game when it makes sense.

 

I sort of remember the trial example you are referring to, but I don't remember the outcomes. From how you describe it, I am sure they will be avoiding such scenarios in this game, though logical outcomes should always trump player desire; sometimes a fight will break out, no matter how skilled you are at sweet talking or sneaking. It all depends on the context of the situation.

[khalil]

 

 

 

 

Is there any chance of problems that can only be solved with diplomacy, or will everything be possible to solve via knives?

 

I think they are trying to avoid scenarios that involve only one path for success.

 

There is also stealth, a valid path that is neither combat nor diplomacy. Outside of those 3 major options, perhaps specific cases allow you to use particular skills or spells to get by without combat.

 

I am certain all quests will be solvable through combat in some way... Not sure if the other paths will always be viable but an alternative should exist.

 

Sigh. I hate games where stealth/diplomacy is a waste and only works half the time whereas shooting people has a 100% success rate.

Look at the trial in NWN2. If you're a fighter, than you just go straight to trial by combat. If you're a rogue who invested points in social skills, then you spend a lot of time faffing about before you end up in the trial by combat anyway, even though the fighter got to skip the stuff he sucked at.

 

 

Well there are certain advantages to using stealth prior to combat (scouting, backstabbing/flanking opponents, or simply circumventing them altogether if you can). Diplomacy might give you an advantage (gain allies or avoid combat altogether). But at the end of the day, fighting will solve most situations in a typical RPG quest, so it makes sense to make it the lowest common denominator a majority of the time. It isn't exactly a good thing if stealth or diplomacy always gives you a 100% chance to complete a quest. Player skill gets taken into account during stealth, so if you are not careful in your movements, it might be your own fault you fail. And I know they are trying to avoid "one button win" scenarios with diplomacy, though maybe a few of those will still be in the game when it makes sense.

 

I sort of remember the trial example you are referring to, but I don't remember the outcomes. From how you describe it, I am sure they will be avoiding such scenarios in this game, though logical outcomes should always trump player desire; sometimes a fight will break out, no matter how skilled you are at sweet talking or sneaking. It all depends on the context of the situation.

 

The outcomes of that arc  were:

You fail the trial in under five seconds, and end up having to do trial by combat instead. This is the option for combat monsters.

You win the trial after large amounts of investigation and debate, and end up having to do trial by combat instead. This is the option for wizards who put cross-class ranks in diplomacy because they expected better of the man who wrote Planescape: Torment.

[sibakruom]

The developers have stated repeatedly that the game was combat focused. This is supposed to be more the "spirtiual successor" of the Baldur's Gate series than Planescape:Torment. I expect that most quests will be possible to solve with combat.

And about the trial in NWN2, they also admitted that forcing the duel no matter the outcome was a mistake, so I'm not too worried they'll do the same again.

[khalil]

The developers have stated repeatedly that the game was combat focused. This is supposed to be more the "spirtiual successor" of the Baldur's Gate series than Planescape:Torment. I expect that most quests will be possible to solve with combat.

And about the trial in NWN2, they also admitted that forcing the duel no matter the outcome was a mistake, so I'm not too worried they'll do the same again.

Sigh.

It's not that I hated BG, but I certainly didn't like it that much. It just felt so generic and bland.

The only way I could have ended up more pessimistic about this is if you said they wanted to to be a successor to Icewind Dale. (When I want a plotless game about killing things for no reason, I play TF2.)

[milczyciel]

Well, as far as I'm aware PoE will be combat heavy. Mind you not "Diablo"-scale heavy, but I would expect something between "Baldur's Gate" and "Icewind Dale" with an often usage of active pause. After all, that was (arguably) the KS premise and on top of that neither BG or ID (especially ID) were possible to beat Gandhi-style* Best you could do, was keeping casualties to a minimum.

Sure, if we are thinking "Planescape Torment" here, one could ask for a pacifist run, but then again I don't believe they were aiming in that direction at all, so that's a misplaced hope.

At least if we are discussing importance of fighting mechanics, because in regards of story telling - who knows, to some degree, maaaybe?

 

More importantly: it was confirmed that the player will have many (question is, how many) possibilities to use skills like mechanics, stealth or survival in those Dark Lands style "events" or "encounters" if you like. I guess same thing goes for dialogues and quest resolving, though I wouldn't expect every possible one to have a "I've talked him out of it" solution... or even "most of them" to be honest.

 

Which in my opinion is totally fine, as personally I find those sentiments pretty impossible to execute in a believable manner in, let's say 90% cases. Unless of course I'd be given ability to play an immortal, indestructible and impossible to confine demigod... In which case I would still expect at least some people to defy me, because in their own words "FU that's why!" 

After all, it's a human thing to fixate on something so much that it makes us able to see it done, no matter the cost.

 

* not to confuse with Civilization's "nuke 'em all" variant

[Hassat Hunter]

And here I was thinking extra dialogue was often it's own reward.

 

I guess not... if you can skip that boring extra dialogue with combat!

[Sir Chaox]

 

The developers have stated repeatedly that the game was combat focused. This is supposed to be more the "spirtiual successor" of the Baldur's Gate series than Planescape:Torment. I expect that most quests will be possible to solve with combat.

And about the trial in NWN2, they also admitted that forcing the duel no matter the outcome was a mistake, so I'm not too worried they'll do the same again.

Sigh.

It's not that I hated BG, but I certainly didn't like it that much. It just felt so generic and bland.

The only way I could have ended up more pessimistic about this is if you said they wanted to to be a successor to Icewind Dale. (When I want a plotless game about killing things for no reason, I play TF2.)

 

 

PE will have descriptive text like PST and likely have good dialogue as well; it will be much more plot oriented than IWD (which is essentially a dungeon crawl for the IE engine) and might be a step up from BG. But good combat is a focus of this game as well.

[khalil]

And here I was thinking extra dialogue was often it's own reward.

 

I guess not... if you can skip that boring extra dialogue with combat!

It is, but it's a bit of a waste when I could fight monsters and get XP for doing so.

 

PE will have descriptive text like PST and likely have good dialogue as well; it will be much more plot oriented than IWD (which is essentially a dungeon crawl for the IE engine) and might be a step up from BG. But good combat is a focus of this game as well.

'Good combat' and 'successor to IE games' feels rather contradictory. Good combat was not their strong points. Fights in BG2 were 25% casting fireballs at offscreen monsters, 25% trying to dispel a wizard's spells that prevent you from dispelling his protection spells, 25% savescuming, and 25% casting an absurdly large amount of protection spells on yourself. Edited January 30, 2014 by khalil

[sibakruom]

 

And here I was thinking extra dialogue was often it's own reward.

 

I guess not... if you can skip that boring extra dialogue with combat!

It is, but it's a bit of a waste when I could fight monsters and get XP for doing so.

 

You'll never get XP for killing monsters, only for for completing objectives. Granted, more often than not I expect it will imply killing monsters on the way. But for the times where you will have a choice, resolving a quest with diplomacy will still be interesting.

[khalil]

 

 

And here I was thinking extra dialogue was often it's own reward.

 

I guess not... if you can skip that boring extra dialogue with combat!

It is, but it's a bit of a waste when I could fight monsters and get XP for doing so.

 

 

You'll never get XP for killing monsters, only for for completing objectives. Granted, more often than not I expect it will imply killing monsters on the way. But for the times where you will have a choice, resolving a quest with diplomacy will still be interesting.

 

This is the best news I've heard all day. I hate getting gyped out of XP for completing an objective in a weird way.

[FlintlockJazz]

 

 

 

 

 

Is there any chance of problems that can only be solved with diplomacy, or will everything be possible to solve via knives?

 

I think they are trying to avoid scenarios that involve only one path for success.

 

There is also stealth, a valid path that is neither combat nor diplomacy. Outside of those 3 major options, perhaps specific cases allow you to use particular skills or spells to get by without combat.

 

I am certain all quests will be solvable through combat in some way... Not sure if the other paths will always be viable but an alternative should exist.

 

Sigh. I hate games where stealth/diplomacy is a waste and only works half the time whereas shooting people has a 100% success rate.

Look at the trial in NWN2. If you're a fighter, than you just go straight to trial by combat. If you're a rogue who invested points in social skills, then you spend a lot of time faffing about before you end up in the trial by combat anyway, even though the fighter got to skip the stuff he sucked at.

 

 

Well there are certain advantages to using stealth prior to combat (scouting, backstabbing/flanking opponents, or simply circumventing them altogether if you can). Diplomacy might give you an advantage (gain allies or avoid combat altogether). But at the end of the day, fighting will solve most situations in a typical RPG quest, so it makes sense to make it the lowest common denominator a majority of the time. It isn't exactly a good thing if stealth or diplomacy always gives you a 100% chance to complete a quest. Player skill gets taken into account during stealth, so if you are not careful in your movements, it might be your own fault you fail. And I know they are trying to avoid "one button win" scenarios with diplomacy, though maybe a few of those will still be in the game when it makes sense.

 

I sort of remember the trial example you are referring to, but I don't remember the outcomes. From how you describe it, I am sure they will be avoiding such scenarios in this game, though logical outcomes should always trump player desire; sometimes a fight will break out, no matter how skilled you are at sweet talking or sneaking. It all depends on the context of the situation.

 

The outcomes of that arc  were:

You fail the trial in under five seconds, and end up having to do trial by combat instead. This is the option for combat monsters.

You win the trial after large amounts of investigation and debate, and end up having to do trial by combat instead. This is the option for wizards who put cross-class ranks in diplomacy because they expected better of the man who wrote Planescape: Torment.

 

It also determined which feat you got at the end (Guilty, Wrongfully Accused or Master Orator).  They had no mechanical effect but I think they may have altered slightly some conversations later.  Not that you're wrong, it should have allowed you to skip the battle at least by doing the social stuff, I suspect that they got worried that most players would feel cheated since the sudden use of social skills in a pretty much just combat focused game was a bit of a curveball for some (since up to that point social skills had barely any influence at all and then all of a sudden they were vital some people would have neglected them quite fairly thinking they were not that important and then feel cheated if the non-violent method gave better stuff), the game really should have had more social-based challenges before the trial to show the importance of the skills to the player. 

 

Since Eternity isn't using social skills but rather attributes instead I don't think we need to worry about this though, since the character's social options will be determined by attributes not skills a player who has spent most of the game just fighting will still be able to get good options when engaging in social activities (which is also closer to the PS:T method as well since that didn't use social skills either but attributs).

Edited January 30, 2014 by FlintlockJazz

[Sir Chaox]

 

And here I was thinking extra dialogue was often it's own reward.

 

I guess not... if you can skip that boring extra dialogue with combat!

It is, but it's a bit of a waste when I could fight monsters and get XP for doing so.

 

PE will have descriptive text like PST and likely have good dialogue as well; it will be much more plot oriented than IWD (which is essentially a dungeon crawl for the IE engine) and might be a step up from BG. But good combat is a focus of this game as well.

'Good combat' and 'successor to IE games' feels rather contradictory. Good combat was not their strong points. Fights in BG2 were 25% casting fireballs at offscreen monsters, 25% trying to dispel a wizard's spells that prevent you from dispelling his protection spells, 25% savescuming, and 25% casting an absurdly large amount of protection spells on yourself.

 

 

They are making improvements to most of the major mechanics for stealth, combat, and dialogue, but it will still have the same feel as those old IE games (party based, isometric, RTwP, D&D style classes and skills, etc.). Seems to be a heavy emphasis on exploration (a la BG) as well.

Edited January 30, 2014 by Sir Chaox

[Walsingham]

Not every problem CAN be solved with diplomacy.

[milczyciel]

And here I was thinking extra dialogue was often it's own reward.

 

I guess not... if you can skip that boring extra dialogue with combat!

Oh it was - I just feel that devs are more inclined towards "BG" than "Fallout", so my expectations are set accordingly (lower) for the "speaky" part of game. Nothing wrong with that.

 

That allows me to grudgingly reminisce about the day, when I discovered there are no "stupid" dialogue lines for low INT / uncharismatic characters in BG. Oh, how disappointed I was... Could be the reason why I liked BG2 better - still no such things like stat and skill-derived dialogue tree, but that time I wasn't expecting it, and additionally followers became far more talkative than anything I knew up that point.

I don't want to be let down like that again, so even if I'd love to be proven wrong I still don't expect wonders from PoE in that regard.

 

PS

Try diplomacy with Frank Horrigan or Liutenant - I bet you know how it will end

Who's responsible for dialogue mechanics in PoE anyway?

Edited February 1, 2014 by milczyciel

[Nyhilla]

I just want to be able to corrupt, scare some, get through others, avoid retarded guards, and so, without killing anyone. Not that I don't like to kill every possible mosquitos that get on my way but this is a sort of "immersion".

What if my character, let's say a wood elf, " good, kind, loving all forms of life, etc ..." (that sort of weaklings stuff from the woods-people) don't want to harm anyone ? Well I think I'll want to avoid any combat that are possible to. I know that all conflicts can't be solved this way, this is why peoples are often different, there would be no war andonly love if it wern't the case.

 

But still, I think it can improve how a player want to draw his/her own story thorugh his/her journey.

 

I remember Dragon age origins, I freaking loved that game, but there was something about diplomacy that was somehow missing in it.

First : There was quasi no talking, when you had to fight, you had to, and this was for like 98% of the game.

Second : When there was diplomacy, it was really short of complexity.

 

Two example :

 

You need to get people to defend the town while searching a way to enter the Arl Eamon castle. Ok so here's the dwarf and his two bodyguards, locked up in his house. You want him to get out and the diplomacy choice, given your strength, is to intimidate him to open the door and fight like a dwarf ! This is basic, but I like that. I don't have to slaughter mianiacally his two bodyguards and reap one off his eyes to get him to fight. You just scare the **** out off him.

Same way to get the blacksmith to open his door and craft armors and weapons for his townfolks.

 

The trial while doing the dwarven part of the game, the election too, no need to say that whatever side you choose, you'll be fighting, sooner or later, and even after.

But you see, this was an option off how diplomacy can work in a game. You can either be good with words, or you can be bad and only fight your way and just tell them what you want after that.

 

And when I'm talking about "diplomacy" (that's such a big word for what it imply), maybe it can be linked too to a barging with a demon. What can I do while talking with this demon, just say "DIE DEMON" and take his loots, or "Gimme the power fiend and I let you live", or maybe something more that I'll see later in the game like and old book, or a cruse that I ask for him in exchange for something I had. Anything that will give me other possibilites, other ways to solve a case/problem/encounter.

 

So, like I said, I don't care to kill every maggots who are getting on my way, but if I can find a way to sneak, sweet talk, or just find a way to pass without having to stab any ****ers on the way, that'll be cool.

I like bashing eveything, but I need a real reason to do that, not just because they're there. I need something more than just a hack'n'slash like type of diplomacy choice.

I hate it when there's only one viable way to get somewhere, and that this way inevitably leads to kill everything.

 

Not my cup of tea of a topic, it's difficult to debate about that one. So correct me if I'm wrong.

Edited February 1, 2014 by Nyhilla

[milczyciel]

Given the multitude of opinions, I think it will be very hard for them to strike the right balance.

I always used the KS video as the reference in such occasions, because it was the reason I (and many others) made up my mind about involving in PoE funding. And let's be honest here - Chris Avellone was the only one in that video, who tackles dialogues* in more depth. Which is exactly what made me believe, that it will be great, sure, but it won't be another (oryginal) Fallout-style skills, stats, karma, reputation, race, sex aware dialogue tree. Even with Tim and Chris aboard.

Yes, sure, since KS they gave me plenty reasons to hope, that it will be more varied and interesting than "BG" interacting mechanics. And it's more or less certain since we've learned there are going to be additional dialogues and opportunities based on player stats, skills and so on.

But still, remembering my disappointment with BG dialogues, I prefer to keep my expectations low. And I recommend pacifist runners to do the same.

 

*though it's worth noticing that the KS video does not make it clear enough just how exactly he's envisioning that (aside from vague reactivity and companions).

 

So to sum it up and make it perfectly clear: I'm OK with "no pacifist run" in PoE not because it's my favourite type of interaction ("arrgh! who cares for those texting headaches, let's click and bash, and smash 'em all!") between player and game world, but because of my KS driven expectations.

 

 

And now take a quick glance at those poll results.

No wonder so many feels disappointed by the emphasis on the "tactical combat" and supposedly lacking importance of "talk my way out of it" option.

[Lephys]

This worries me, as I've played a large amount of games where diplomacy is a token decoration, whereas every problem can be solved by stabbing things until they stop moving.

I realize games can be designed that way, but, there are plenty of situations that cannot be solved by "stabing things until they stop moving." And/or, there are plenty of outcomes that cannot be achieved via force.

 

You can't exactly stop a war by murdering the commander of one of the armies in the middle of a parlay. I'm pretty sure his forces would charge at that point. "They've just slaughtered the commander! ATTACK, MEN!"

You can't kill someone into performing some rite/ritual that only they can perform. You can't restore some divided faction to its former glory by killing half the faction. You can convince someone to give you information, and/or sneakily obtain said information, IF you don't approach the situation with hostility and cause the person to destroy that information. Etc.

 

Everything can't be solved with force/killing.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Given the multitude of opinions, I think it will be very hard for them to strike the right balance.

I always used the KS video as the reference in such occasions, because it was the reason I (and many others) made up my mind about involving in PoE funding. And let's be honest here - Chris Avellone was the only one in that video, who tackles dialogues* in more depth. Which is exactly what made me believe, that it will be great, sure, but it won't be another (oryginal) Fallout-style skills, stats, karma, reputation, race, sex aware dialogue tree. Even with Tim and Chris aboard.

 

I demanded all of the the things you listed on F:NV (well, not race, since you were always human) and have pushed for even more on PoE.  Eric Fenstermaker is our narrative lead and he's written some of the most reactive quests and characters in our games (e.g. Beyond the Beef, Veronica, and Boone in F:NV).  I don't know where you would have gotten the idea that we weren't going to have highly-reactive dialogue.

[Ffordesoon]

@Josh:

 

To be fair to him, y'all have discussed combat and stealth in much greater depth than diplomacy. Which isn't unreasonable, since you want to avoid spoilers and dialogue-based reactivity is the hardest system to describe in an interesting way without giving examples. But, you know, I can see how someone would get that impression.

[Lephys]

^ I think it's mildly unreasonable to get such an impression, since "you haven't exactly elaborated a lot on this, even though you claimed its a goal of yours" doesn't mean "you obviously don't care about this/you lied."

 

Or, rather, it's one thing to consider a possibility, and another thing entirely to arbitrarily label it a probability. I get people thinking "maybe there's not going to be much emphasis on this goal?", but I honestly don't get "I'm going to go ahead and decide that's probably the case, since I don't really know one way or the other but have reasonably exposed the sheer possibility." 8P

 

I mean, meh... we're human. It's not the end of the world. Doesn't make you bad to do such a thing. I just think gathering sufficient info before deciding something is always the best decision. For some reason, as humans, we're prone to some need to be able to decide something before we really have enough information to do so. I dunno if you'd call that impatience, or what. It's kind of human nature, though.

[milczyciel]

I demanded all of the the things you listed on F:NV (well, not race, since you were always human) and have pushed for even more on PoE.  Eric Fenstermaker is our narrative lead and he's written some of the most reactive quests and characters in our games (e.g. Beyond the Beef, Veronica, and Boone in F:NV).  I don't know where you would have gotten the idea that we weren't going to have highly-reactive dialogue.

Heh, I got that idea from the lack of knowledge upon topic, because I was unable to follow every update. Also because I red maybe one or two interviews over sites like RPS or RPGC, missing tons of content in the process. Thus, my basic reference in regard of whether it will be more like Fallout or more like BG was the very subjective feeling I got from the KS video.

But I must admit that F:NV even though greatly reactive (leagues better than Fallout 3*) left me longing for even more. We have that saying in Poland "apetyt rosnie w miare jedzenia" which translates (veeery loosely) to "the more you have, the more you want". Could be the case here

 

If You'll manage to amaze that impossible grump (i.e. me) then I'll... hmm I dunno...

I'll admit I was wrong? Yeah, I know, that's hardly good enough. So maybe I'll give my firstborn Eryk for a second name (first one already taken, sorry).

I think we'll be cool then

Thanks anyway and rest assured I'm already happy, no matter how it unfolds.

 

* which I think was locked on 4 maybe 5 levels of skill-check variables AND 2 ways "good" and "evil" for dialogue to develop, but I'm not sure, I very much forced myself to play once, and never reinstalled it again.

Edited February 6, 2014 by milczyciel

[milczyciel]

Sorry for double posting buuut I was to busy answering Josh to notice defense speech

Thanks guys, for a moment there I felt like "maybe I'm rambling like an idiot here?". Good to see that I've made my point clear-ish enough

 

It's like, any time he answers some of my concerns, I'm all "s***! he's talking to me! I must have did something wrong!"

lol I say

Edited February 6, 2014 by milczyciel