Update #74: The Mob Rulers: Wizards and Druids and our Partnership with Paradox

[Stun]

You admit -- via metaphor, granted -- that Josh is "right," yet still act like his decisions are baseless or preposterous. Which is it?

The former. Of course he's right. Take Randomness, for example. In some games, if degrees of success and failure are based on a dice roll (ie. luck), then some gamers will simply re-load until they get an optimal result. That is degenerate game play. Josh is *right* when he says that this should never have to happen -that all success and failure should be based 100% on the player's skill, and not luck. His argument is 100% logical.

 

But Logic and fun are not related. People ENJOY randomness. People LOVE the luck game. Go to Las Vegas and look around if you don't believe me.

 

Personally, I'd like a little of both in my games. But really, this all kinda misses the point. I'm more concerned about what we're losing in order to achieve this perfectly logical, perfectly degenerate-free game. Death spells is one thing we're losing. Spell pre-buffing is another. Those things were FUN for me, but I guess my definition of fun isn't in line with Josh's gaming philosophies.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

The former. Of course he's right. Take Randomness, for example. In some games, if degrees of success and failure are based on a dice roll (ie. luck), then some gamers will simply re-load until they get an optimal result. That is degenerate game play. Josh is *right* when he says that this should never have to happen -that all success and failure should be based 100% on the player's skill, and not luck. His argument is 100% logical.

When did he say that?

[Bryy]

Those things were FUN for me, but I guess my definition of fun isn't in line with Josh's gaming philosophies.

 

....

 

Okay.

 

Just because one game does something one way does not mean that it is the only way to bring about fun.

[Tamerlane]

 

You admit -- via metaphor, granted -- that Josh is "right," yet still act like his decisions are baseless or preposterous. Which is it?

The former. Of course he's right. Take Randomness, for example. In some games, if degrees of success and failure are based on a dice roll (ie. luck), then some gamers will simply re-load until they get an optimal result. That is degenerate game play. Josh is *right* when he says that this should never have to happen -that all success and failure should be based 100% on the player's skill, and not luck. His argument is 100% logical.

 

But Logic and fun are not related. People ENJOY randomness. People LOVE the luck game. Go to Las Vegas and look around if you don't believe me.

 

Personally, I'd like a little of both in my games. But really, this all kinda misses the point. I'm more concerned about what we're losing in order to achieve this perfectly logical, perfectly degenerate-free game. Death spells is one thing we're losing. Spell pre-buffing is another. Those things were FUN for me, but I guess my definition of fun isn't in line with Josh's gaming philosophies.

 

What even is this?

[Stun]

 

The former. Of course he's right. Take Randomness, for example. In some games, if degrees of success and failure are based on a dice roll (ie. luck), then some gamers will simply re-load until they get an optimal result. That is degenerate game play. Josh is *right* when he says that this should never have to happen -that all success and failure should be based 100% on the player's skill, and not luck. His argument is 100% logical.

When did he say that?

 

Remember that giant Insta-death thread? I think he said it there.

[Lephys]

Remember that giant Insta-death thread? I think he said it there.

I'm fairly certain he didn't, but I could be wrong. If you can locate a quote, I'm all "ears."

 

I distinctly recall him talking about his qualms with missing in the previous games, back when he was talking about pulling full misses from attack resolution. Then, of course, it was decided that missing would be included after all, albeit in a more minimized and influenceable capacity.

 

His design decisions speak a lot louder than vague misinterpretations of his words ever could. He had a problem with the degree to which chance affected attack resolution. Having adjusted that degree (and allowed player choice a greater hand in the mix), he is content. And so are many others with that system.

[Stun]

 

Remember that giant Insta-death thread? I think he said it there.

I'm fairly certain he didn't, but I could be wrong. If you can locate a quote, I'm all "ears."

 

I distinctly recall him talking about his qualms with missing in the previous games, back when he was talking about pulling full misses from attack resolution. Then, of course, it was decided that missing would be included after all, albeit in a more minimized and influenceable capacity.

 

His design decisions speak a lot louder than vague misinterpretations of his words ever could. He had a problem with the degree to which chance affected attack resolution. Having adjusted that degree (and allowed player choice a greater hand in the mix), he is content. And so are many others with that system.

 

Ok. found it. Sorta. It's not the quote I remember but here's his thoughts on "luck".

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/62090-instant-death/page-5

 

It's a quote of his taken from Mindspring.

 

Will PE feature "Instant Death" spells and abilities like Desintegration and Imprisonment from BG?. Or skills with similar function - maybe Headshot for handguns. Something with chance to kill PC instantly, unless he will be lucky to roll a saving throw?

 

 

No. Save or die effects are really easy to abuse offensively (as a player) and they require either luck or hard counters to defend against as a player -- neither of which are very interesting, tactically.

 

PCs can be downed in a small number of hits (possibly one if the enemy is powerful enough), but that has less to do with luck and more to do with the raw power difference between the attacker and the defender.

 

 

 

Accuracy in PE, like the IE games, is determined primarily by character stats, not player skill. Hard counters in a single-player RPG are obnoxious, IMO

 

Because either you're prepped for them or you aren't. If you aren't, you reload and voila, you are. If you prepared save-or-die tactic that the enemy is immune to, you're hard countered through no fault of your own. If not, you steamroll the enemy.

 

Or you do what many players do, which is reload until the primary target fails its save and the entire tactical challenge of the fight is rendered trivial/pointless.

Again, Everything he's saying here is "right" and "logical". But that doesn't change the fact that Death spells were FUN. They were fun to use, and fun to see being used against you. But, they're not going to be in PE because.... they can be abused. Edited March 26, 2014 by Stun

[StrangeCat]

Looks good!  I like the detail you are putting into the game.

I would like to see other areas of the game though. 

Look forward to seeing some animation in the works.

[Ffordesoon]

@Stun:

 

But what if the celery ends up tasting like ice cream?

[Lephys]

Again, Everything he's saying here is "right" and "logical". But that doesn't change the fact that Death spells were FUN. They were fun to use, and fun to see being used against you. But, they're not going to be in PE because.... they can be abused.

And death spells that actually require influence/effort on the part of the player are somehow zero fun, while the merest roll of the dice and hopes and wishes for the number they stop on to result in death are somehow the only form of fun that can be had?

 

See, you're acting as though by changing something, fun, in general, is fleeing, and nothing is replacing it. There aren't any Bards in PoE. But there are Chanters. So, if they've hacked Bards off the class roster, and we've lost the fun that Bards were, then we're getting Chanters. So, I don't understand where we're being wronged.

 

And, again, you accuse him of straight-up hating luck. A la:

 

Of course he's right. Take Randomness, for example. In some games, if degrees of success and failure are based on a dice roll (ie. luck), then some gamers will simply re-load until they get an optimal result. That is degenerate game play. Josh is *right* when he says that this should never have to happen -that all success and failure should be based 100% on the player's skill, and not luck. His argument is 100% logical.

Which is an outright strawman. What he said was, death spells (for example) are based solely on luck/randomness. In other words (as I've pointed out numerous times before), the sheer extent of the randomness, and how it pushes any influence from player decision out of the way. Thus, he's not trying to slay luck, just balance the scales a bit. Never did he say "luck shouldn't even be a factor, and it should be 100% player skill." You know he didn't say that. You're just so focused on representing him as someone who makes baseless, impractical claims in order to justify your own emotional dislike of his decisions and ideas that you're too busy to actually confront what he really did say.

 

Luck is fun, but that doesn't mean there's no moderation to be had, or that luck doesn't have its place. Obviously if you played a game in which you just clicked a "Continue" button, and things just randomly occurred, all without your effort and interaction, that wouldn't be much of a game. And yet, if you played a game where all you did was click "Hit that guy for 15 damage" and there was never a chance of anything happening but the action and result you had chosen, that ALSO would be pretty terrible. Thus, the idea of "maybe we should use them both to compliment each other" was born.

 

Anywho, almost everything like this you've ever gotten worked up about has been specifically about extents and degrees, and yet you pretend those don't even exist and it's just about having one thing or the other. If you've got qualms about something, at least accurately represent the idea with which you disagree. Croikey...

[Stun]

And death spells that actually require influence/effort on the part of the player are somehow zero fun,

All death spells require influence/effort on the part of the player. They're not Level 1 spells that are given to you at character creation, after all. They must be earned.

 

while the merest roll of the dice and hopes and wishes for the number they stop on to result in death are somehow the only form of fun that can be had?

Straw man. (why the hell do I waste my time with you?)

 

Edit: and you're blind. I said THIS in my last post:

Personally, I'd like a little of both in my games.

^imagine that

 

 

 

And, again, you accuse him of straight-up hating luck. A la:

Of course he's right. Take Randomness, for example. In some games, if degrees of success and failure are based on a dice roll (ie. luck), then some gamers will simply re-load until they get an optimal result. That is degenerate game play. Josh is *right* when he says that this should never have to happen -that all success and failure should be based 100% on the player's skill, and not luck. His argument is 100% logical.

 

Can you show me in that quote of mine where I accuse Josh of hating luck? Edited March 26, 2014 by Stun

[Stun]

.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Stun

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

What even is this?

Butthurt because PoE isn't exactly like BG2. I'd say the idea that a game isn't going to be fun because the ability to spend a few minutes before a fight casting buffs and the absence of death spells is a pretty strange argument, especially about a game no one but the devs have actually played yet.

 

@Stun:

But what if the celery ends up tasting like ice cream?

That would be pretty damn cool. But what about celery-flavored ice cream?

[Ffordesoon]

That would be pretty damn cool. But what about celery-flavored ice cream?

...

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

That would be pretty damn cool. But what about celery-flavored ice cream?

...

I have a feeling that vegetable-flavored ice cream will take off any day now.

 

We should have a Kickstarter.

[Elerond]

 

 

That would be pretty damn cool. But what about celery-flavored ice cream?

...

I have a feeling that vegetable-flavored ice cream will take off any day now.

 

We should have a Kickstarter.

 

 

Chili-jalapeno-vanilla Ice cream was actually quite good tasting.

[PrimeJunta]

Already been done. I remember trying at least avocado ice cream, tomato ice cream, garlic ice cream, onion ice cream. Also blue cheese ice cream which while not a vegetable falls in the same cateogry. Most very very good. I'm sure celery would be too. The trick is that they're starters, not desserts.

 

PS. That was in France. They'll eat anything and make you like it.

Edited March 26, 2014 by PrimeJunta

[Bryy]

I have a feeling that vegetable-flavored ice cream will take off any day now.

We should have a Kickstarter.

 

The Apocalypse.

 

Brought to you by everyone.

[ManifestedISO]

See what happens on No-update Tuesday. I love ice cream semantics, gelato is my personal favorite. In the off-chance you think you're doing right by buying a 24-pack of Snickers Ice Cream Bars ... don't. Too much really is too much.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

I have a feeling that vegetable-flavored ice cream will take off any day now.

 

We should have a Kickstarter.

 

The Apocalypse.

 

Brought to you by everyone.

Apocalypse Ice cream: Hellfire ice cream with brimstone swirls and chunks of Conquest, War, Famine, and Death.

 

Best idea ever.

[Messier-31]

Apocalypse Ice cream: Hellfire ice cream with brimstone swirls and chunks of Conquest, War, Famine, and Death.

 

Two, please.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Apocalypse Ice cream: Hellfire ice cream with brimstone swirls and chunks of Conquest, War, Famine, and Death.

 

 

Two, please.

Pint or Quart, love?

[Messier-31]

Pint or Quart, love?

 

You're too kind... make it a gallon.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Pint or Quart, love?

 

 

You're too kind... make it a gallon.

You'll have to wait a few weeks, I'm running low on War and the supply of Famine I have isn't up to par.

[Ineth]

What he said was, death spells (for example) are based solely on luck/randomness.

 

I don't think that's true though.

 

Before casting, say, Finger of Death in BG2, one would make the following considerations:

• Is the situation dire enough to warrant using up a precious 7th level spell right now?

  (And of course earlier, before resting: Is Finger of Death the best use of a 7th level spell slot, instead of memorizing a different spell of that level?)

   

• Which of the dangerous enemies in sight would make a good target for that spell?

  (i.e. who will likely have a sufficiently bad Death Saving Throw to allow the spell to work? Who will probably be outright immune?)

   

• What's the backup plan?

  (If the target's saving throw succeeds, my mage will have effectively wasted a round, which could tip the battle in the enemies' favor. Will my party have a chance to recover from that and still win the battle? If not, it may not be a good idea to take the gamble of casting Finger of Death right now, and a more defensive battle strategy may be in order.)

   

• Does the target have active spell protections that need to be removed first?

  (On my first game, I made the mistake of casting Finger of Death against a mage protected by Spell Turing. So the finger flew right back and killed my own mage. Ouch.)

All in all, that seems sufficiently tactical and fun to me, not just "pure randomness without player effort".

 

Of course whether the actual saving throw succeeds is decided by dice roll, but the same is true for the to-hit rolls of melee attacks and pretty much everything else you do in the game, so I don't see what's so wrong with it in this case.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Ineth