That's one ugly boat

[injurai]

 

I'm not seeing the Japanese influence in Maia myself. I got a strong Ottoman Empire vibe from Kana's descriptions of Ruatai but I don't know whether that was intended or not.

 

Nope, definetly Japanese, and devs even confirmed it somewhere, don't remember where now. I think they mentioned Ainu people's clothing as an inspiration.

I can see the ornament resemblance here. And that footwear definitely looks Japanese too. I believe those sandals are called waraji.

 

Clothes alone, of course do not mean everything else, like culture for example, are based on Japan. But seems fitting to assume that their ships look Asian.

 

 

​Wow, I was sure Maia was Chinese inspired. I was familiar with the Ainu but the didn't come to mind. This is fantastic. Also this is more interesting than just solely drawing off of mainline Muromachi and Edo period Japan.

[Gromnir]

 

another pandora's box thread.  am tempted to resurrect the old poe development threads regarding armour, particular female model armors.  honest.  folks is being mighty peculiar and selective with their willingness to accept the implausible.

 

Given I wasn't part of those discussions, I have no idea what you're trying to say in this post. Feel free to expand on how I am being selective.

 

first question: are you offended by the lack o' plausibility o' poe armours?  

 

if you are not, then feel free to do a search for b00b armour.  again, is not applicable to the current thread save to observe how selective folks is being with their plausibility concerns.  

 

pj gets his way and if plausibility is a genuine concern, then during any kinda boarding party combat you is gonna have two boats which will not slide right up next to each other like tetris pieces.  gonna now need explain away the inconsistency o' two rough ellipses bouncing around yet staying relative perfect aligned.  so now we need grappling hooks and gaffs and that still won't explain away the lack o' movement 'tween the two boats as they heave 'gainst each other. not to mention having created the unnecessary fighting in a basement quandary as only one small portion o' each boat will in fact align. so, w/o any z axis possible, am gonna need be able walk 'cross at a single narrow point, which is implausible and limiting from a gameplay pov. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps and recall, as pj were by shape o' the boat, he advocated a sail plan requiring wind come from two directions at once.  folks is oddly selective in their willingness to suspend disbelief for the sake o' gameplay needs.  is no seeming way to create an objective scale for such arbitrary choices.

Edited February 25, 2017 by Gromnir

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

 

 

another pandora's box thread.  am tempted to resurrect the old poe development threads regarding armour, particular female model armors.  honest.  folks is being mighty peculiar and selective with their willingness to accept the implausible.

 

Given I wasn't part of those discussions, I have no idea what you're trying to say in this post. Feel free to expand on how I am being selective.

 

first question: are you offended by the lack o' plausibility o' poe armours?  

 

if you are not, then feel free to do a search for b00b armour.  again, is not applicable to the current thread save to observe how selective folks is being with their plausibility concerns.  

 

pj gets his way and if plausibility is a genuine concern, then during any kinda boarding party combat you is gonna have two boats which will not slide right up next to each other like tetris pieces.  gonna now need explain away the inconsistency o' two rough ellipses bouncing around yet staying relative perfect aligned.  so now we need grappling hooks and gaffs and that still won't explain away the lack o' movement 'tween the two boats as they heave 'gainst each other. not to mention having created the unnecessary fighting in a basement quandary as only one small portion o' each boat will in fact align. so, w/o any z axis possible, am gonna need be able walk 'cross at a single narrow point, which is implausible and limiting from a gameplay pov. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

pss and recall, as pj were by shape o' the boat, he advocated a sail plan requiring wind come from two directions at once.  folks is oddly selective in their willingness to suspend disbelief for the sake o' gameplay needs.  is no seeming way to create an objective scale for such arbitrary choices.

 

 

 

Actually I'd really like to see at least an attempt at "accurate" boarding actions. Keeping ships together wasn't really an issue -- the rigging etc. would get inter-tangled. It would be great to see the grappling hooks shoot across, ramming, charging the enemy ship across the bow or across the stern, etc. 

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

another pandora's box thread.  am tempted to resurrect the old poe development threads regarding armour, particular female model armors.  honest.  folks is being mighty peculiar and selective with their willingness to accept the implausible.

 

Given I wasn't part of those discussions, I have no idea what you're trying to say in this post. Feel free to expand on how I am being selective.

 

first question: are you offended by the lack o' plausibility o' poe armours?  

 

if you are not, then feel free to do a search for b00b armour.  again, is not applicable to the current thread save to observe how selective folks is being with their plausibility concerns.  

 

pj gets his way and if plausibility is a genuine concern, then during any kinda boarding party combat you is gonna have two boats which will not slide right up next to each other like tetris pieces.  gonna now need explain away the inconsistency o' two rough ellipses bouncing around yet staying relative perfect aligned.  so now we need grappling hooks and gaffs and that still won't explain away the lack o' movement 'tween the two boats as they heave 'gainst each other. not to mention having created the unnecessary fighting in a basement quandary as only one small portion o' each boat will in fact align. so, w/o any z axis possible, am gonna need be able walk 'cross at a single narrow point, which is implausible and limiting from a gameplay pov. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

pss and recall, as pj were by shape o' the boat, he advocated a sail plan requiring wind come from two directions at once.  folks is oddly selective in their willingness to suspend disbelief for the sake o' gameplay needs.  is no seeming way to create an objective scale for such arbitrary choices.

 

 

 

Actually I'd really like to see at least an attempt at "accurate" boarding actions. Keeping ships together wasn't really an issue -- the rigging etc. would get inter-tangled. It would be great to see the grappling hooks shoot across, ramming, charging the enemy ship across the bow or across the stern, etc. 

 

entangled rigging only works as an explanation with a z axis.  and very much depends on who is windward, etc.   making far too much a blanket explanation.  even so, the rigging explanation is not gonna have so enmeshed and entangled as be reminiscent o' a movie mummy.  only gonna be small points o' common contact tween two ellipses, and those points o' contact should be constant shifting.

 

again, you are working hard to explain away an implausibility... which is ok.  the thing is, the same effort could be used to simple explain away current boat shape.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps having been on sailing vessels which have ringing become entangled, we can tell you it is a comple charlie fox scenario.  still got momentum o' two vessels which were unlike on exact same vector.  plus you got wind and waves and angry sailors.  is not predictable.

Edited February 25, 2017 by Gromnir

[Fenixp]

Ships of any period weren't designed to be navigated using mouse in an isometric perspective. Or to house companions and ship upgrades visible from an isometric perspective. Judging by workflow of pretty much any experienced artist, looking up models of contemporary ships was the fist thing they've done, before proceeding to change and redesign it to fit the needs of an isometric party-based RPG.

 

Gameplay > Historical accuracy.

[Madscientist]

PJ (or any other expert for ships), what do you think about the BG2 video?

I am not an expert, but some things seem strange to me:

- On the last mast, one sail is in front of the mast and the other one behind it and both point in different directions.

- The rear part of the ship seems to be made completely out of windows

- This ship seems to be much larger than the one we will get. Do the people have the right proportions compared to the ship? It is hard for me to imagine how a normal person would look on this kind of ship.

 

It looks a bit like both ships float above the water, but maybe this is just because now water can be much better displayed than 17 years ago.

[JerekKruger]

first question: are you offended by the lack o' plausibility o' poe armours?

 

No because, by and large, PoE armours are plausible.

 

if you are not, then feel free to do a search for b00b armour.  

 

I hadn't noticed the fact that scale armour (and mail as well it seems, though not leather interestingly) is rather form fitting. Given that such armours would usually be worn with a gambeson on underneath, there probably wouldn't be much figure visible. I guess you'd need to actually dress a model in authentic reproductions to see exactly what they'd look like (I did a quick search but "mail armour female" doesn't return many authentic examples), but I'd prefer whatever is more realistic.

 

pj gets his way and if plausibility is a genuine concern, then during any kinda boarding party combat you is gonna have two boats which will not slide right up next to each other like tetris pieces.  gonna now need explain away the inconsistency o' two rough ellipses bouncing around yet staying relative perfect aligned.  so now we need grappling hooks and gaffs and that still won't explain away the lack o' movement 'tween the two boats as they heave 'gainst each other. not to mention having created the unnecessary fighting in a basement quandary as only one small portion o' each boat will in fact align. so, w/o any z axis possible, am gonna need be able walk 'cross at a single narrow point, which is implausible and limiting from a gameplay pov. 

 

The thing is, there are things the game engine* can handle and there are things the it can't. I'd prefer that the ships move about as you describe, but I'm fairly certain that doing that is beyond what the engine can do. I don't think making a more ship shaped ship is beyond what they can do however, so I'd prefer they do so.

 

EDIT: by the way, the same problem applies to a more rectangular shaped ship.

 

There are ways round the problem of having only a small point of contact as well. You can have a number of interactable objects along the edge of each ship which, when clicked by a character transfers them to the equivalent point on the other ship (ideally with an animation of some sort).

 

pss and recall, as pj were by shape o' the boat, he advocated a sail plan requiring wind come from two directions at once.  folks is oddly selective in their willingness to suspend disbelief for the sake o' gameplay needs.  is no seeming way to create an objective scale for such arbitrary choices.

 

I've already mentioned that you can get round that by having the sails be correctly aligned, but having them fade out when you're zoomed in leaving only base of each mast visible.

 

*Probably the wrong term. I just mean the limitations of what Obsidian can do with Deadfire.

Edited February 25, 2017 by JerekKruger

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

 

 

entangled rigging only works as an explanation with a z axis.  and very much depends on who is windward, etc.   making far too much a blanket explanation.  even so, the rigging explanation is not gonna have so enmeshed and entangled as be reminiscent o' a movie mummy.  only gonna be small points o' common contact tween two ellipses, and those points o' contact should be constant shifting.

 

again, you are working hard to explain away an implausibility... which is ok.  the thing is, the same effort could be used to simple explain away current boat shape.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps having been on sailing vessels which have ringing become entangled, we can tell you it is a comple charlie fox scenario.  still got momentum o' two vessels which were unlike on exact same vector.  plus you got wind and waves and angry sailors.  is not predictable.

 

 

 

Right, but there's no need for complete 100% historical realism, just so long as nothing breaks suspension of disbelief. The current apparent "both ships line up next to each other then everybody fights" system is workable enough. But it could get a little weirdly repetitive across multiple repeated fights, and adding a little more variety to the boarding angles and allowing for things like boarding across the stern and the like would just add some depth. 

 

I'm not sure if cutting your ship free mid-fight is something that they need to add or not. I think it's probably better from a gameplay perspective to assume that once the ships are locked and we load the Boarding Combat map, the ships stay locked until the fight is won or lost.

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

Ships of any period weren't designed to be navigated using mouse in an isometric perspective. Or to house companions and ship upgrades visible from an isometric perspective. Judging by workflow of pretty much any experienced artist, looking up models of contemporary ships was the fist thing they've done, before proceeding to change and redesign it to fit the needs of an isometric party-based RPG.

 

Gameplay > Historical accuracy.

 

 

Oh I'm sure. I think they just got their historical designs a little mixed up, or were working from historical drawings / sketches that weren't, like, actual ship blueprints. The Defiant we see in the pitch video isn't bad, it's a good first draft, it's just weird. I suspect they were working from a drawing of a Cog and then probably heightened the aftercastle a bit so that party member models could walk in and out of it easily, without realizing how weird that would make the rest of the ship look in proportion. 

 

 

 

 

I've already mentioned that you can get round that by having the sails be correctly aligned, but having them fade out when you're zoomed in leaving only base of each mast visible.

 

*Probably the wrong term. I just mean the limitations of what Obsidian can do with Deadfire.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, this is how other games handle it. Just go to transparent overlay.

Edited February 25, 2017 by Dr. Hieronymous Alloy

[Gromnir]

PJ (or any other expert for ships), what do you think about the BG2 video?

I am not an expert, but some things seem strange to me:

- On the last mast, one sail is in front of the mast and the other one behind it and both point in different directions.

- The rear part of the ship seems to be made completely out of windows

- This ship seems to be much larger than the one we will get. Do the people have the right proportions compared to the ship? It is hard for me to imagine how a normal person would look on this kind of ship.

 

It looks a bit like both ships float above the water, but maybe this is just because now water can be much better displayed than 17 years ago.

gonna need ask folks such as amentep, leferd and *sigh* vol, but is worth noting that as silly looking and implausible were the bg2 ship, designed obvious more for gameplay than realism, we cannot recall complaints.

 

 

 

first question: are you offended by the lack o' plausibility o' poe armours?

 

No because, by and large, PoE armours are plausible.

 

if you are not, then feel free to do a search for b00b armour.  

 

I hadn't noticed the fact that scale armour (and mail as well it seems, though not leather interestingly) is rather form fitting.

maybe should read whole post before answering parts, eh?  yeah, the poe armours are form fitting and even josh conceded how such were not realistic.  poe artists conscious made a concession to aesthetics.  is no if, but or maybe 'bout practicality or realism o' women armour in poe.  the immediate recognizable differentiation 'tween sex o' wearer o' poe armours is implausible. period. 

 

arbitrary.  how does one draw a line when these quibbles is all so arbitrary?

 

"Right, but there's no need for complete 100% historical realism, just so long as nothing breaks suspension of disbelief."

 

again, arbitrary.  ship shape offends, but simple and brick like shapes makes boarding party combat more plausible.  is an obvious concession to gameplay just as were the bg2 ship. nevertheless, one arbitrary design concession offends.  the other does not.  from our pov, wind coming from two different directions at once offends our sensibilities.  it doesn't bother pj.  okie dokie.  

 

there is literal hundreds, if not thousands, o' implausibilities in poe.  there will be at least as many in poe2. if there is a decent gameplay explanation, and is not wacky extreme, chances are Gromnir won't fight the wind, so to speak.  am always surprised at the kinda stuff folks get worked up 'bout, when they seem to simultaneous be accepting o' so much other equal ridiculous implausibility.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

again, arbitrary.  ship shape offends, but simple and brick like shapes makes boarding party combat more plausible.  is an obvious concession to gameplay just as were the bg2 ship. nevertheless, one arbitrary design concession offends.  the other does not.  from our pov, wind coming from two different directions at once offends our sensibilities.  it doesn't bother pj.  okie dokie.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Offends" is stronger than I'd say. I'd say the current ship design distracts.

 

It's workable enough but if they can improve it that'd be even better. (and I do hope that there's at least some attention paid to things like wind-direction in the pre-combat narrative blurbs). 

 

That's the point of feedback at this stage -- to point out areas where what we've seen so far could be improved, if the dev team decides they have the resources to do so.

[JerekKruger]

maybe should read whole post before answering parts, eh?  yeah, the poe armours are form fitting and even josh conceded how such were not realistic.  poe artists conscious made a concession to aesthetics.  is no if, but or maybe 'bout practicality or realism o' women armour in poe.  the immediate recognizable differentiation 'tween sex o' wearer o' poe armours is implausible. period.

 

I'm not going to read the entirety of an 18 page thread. If there's something relevant to the current discussion from said thread then feel free to raise it.

 

As for the recognisable differentiation between the sex of the wearer of armour being implausible, where did I say otherwise?

 

there is literal hundreds, if not thousands, o' implausibilities in poe.  there will be at least as many in poe2. if there is a decent gameplay explanation, and is not wacky extreme, chances are Gromnir won't fight the wind, so to speak.  am always surprised at the kinda stuff folks get worked up 'bout, when they seem to simultaneous be accepting o' so much other equal ridiculous implausibility.

 

 

I'm not getting worked up. This is a forum for discussing Deadfire. Obsidian recently revealed the boat that we're going to have in Deadfire. I'm discussing it.

 

As for the arbitrariness of it all: sure, it is. But short of having no opinions at all, this is unavoidable.

[Gromnir]

where did you say otherwise?  

 

"No because, by and large, PoE armours are plausible."

 

*shrug*

 

at least 50% o' poe armours is implausible. more actual.  is another thread where we mention the one-size-fits-all aspect.  could continue.

 

again, the complaints 'bout the ship design is arbitrary to the point o', in hieronymous wording, distraction.  as a developer we would be utter baffled. why ships?  can be equal dismissive o' cad nua  design as a practical fortification.  we know nothing 'bout city planning or architecture, but am betting folks with expertise in such stuff could find innumerable points o' contention with the defiance bay buildings and catacombs. any biologists wanna take a guess as to how much all the gigantic predators we constat fight would need eat to survive, and what would be the result o' clear overlapping hunting ranges?

 

on and on and on.

 

we get the complaint from pov as pure aesthetics.  is perfectly ok to argue aesthetics.  the thing is, folks far too often wanna lend a false sense o' credibility to the aesthetic preference by arguing plausibility or realism.  somehow a plausibility argument is seeming more legit, yes?

 

am simple not knowing how folks distinguish implausible distraction from necessarily implausible.  wind from two directions is ok.  ships which, particular given elliptical shape, natural buck 'bout like bumper cars in slo-mo, would instead be locked together like magnets to be making boarding party combat plausible is also ok. boats with relative uniform beam 'tween the perpendiculars is nevertheless implausible.  

 

doesn't make sense.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

 

 

we get the complaint from pov as pure aesthetics.  is perfectly ok to argue aesthetics.  the thing is, folks far too often wanna lend a false sense o' credibility to the aesthetic preference by arguing plausibility or realism.  somehow a plausibility argument is seeming more legit, yes?

 

 

 

I think boats are a special case where there's a correlation between "realistic" designs and aesthetics. Well-designed boats are attractive and unattractive boats tend to sail poorly. There are even decent reasons for that -- symmetry helps a boat sail effeciently, hydrodynamics dictates certain types of hulls will perform better than other kinds and those hull shapes are inherently fairly attractive, visually disproportionate or imbalanced elements are likely to also be physically imbalanced and thus impact sailing.

 

That sort of correlation between aesthetics and function isn't true for most other things you'd see in a video game (armor, weapons), or at least not in the same way. A sword can be ugly and still be effective, but the same is rarely true of a boat.

 

The main "sin" the Defiant commits in the pitch video is that its aftercastle is  disproportionate to the rest of the boat. That's an aesthetic issue and a "realism" one, but the two issues are linked -- the same disproportionality that makes it look bad would also make such a boat sail poorly. 

 

Of course if that's the equivalent of your "newbie ship" it's not necessarily the end of the world for it to look and sail kinda weird! 

Edited February 26, 2017 by Dr. Hieronymous Alloy

[JerekKruger]

"No because, by and large, PoE armours are plausible."

 

*shrug*

 

at least 50% o' poe armours is implausible. more actual.  is another thread where we mention the one-size-fits-all aspect.  could continue.

 

Sigh. Okay, you got me, I should have been more precise about what I meant by plausible.

 

we get the complaint from pov as pure aesthetics.  is perfectly ok to argue aesthetics.  the thing is, folks far too often wanna lend a false sense o' credibility to the aesthetic preference by arguing plausibility or realism.  somehow a plausibility argument is seeming more legit, yes?

 

 

Or maybe people find things that are plausible more aesthetically pleasing, and mention that when expressing their preference. I think it's a fairly natural thing to do to give reasons why one holds an opinion. 

 

am simple not knowing how folks distinguish implausible distraction from necessarily implausible.  wind from two directions is ok.  ships which, particular given elliptical shape, natural buck 'bout like bumper cars in slo-mo, would instead be locked together like magnets to be making boarding party combat plausible is also ok. boats with relative uniform beam 'tween the perpendiculars is nevertheless implausible.  

 

 

You know you're right. It's not really about plausibility for me, it's about aesthetics. It's just that for me an aesthetically pleasing ship (or suit of armour) is one that looks like real world ships because I find beauty in understanding the design.

 

Looking back at this conversation I notice that it was you who started this devil's advocate line of questioning in response to me expressing my preference for historical armour over fantasy armour. It was you who took the reason for my preference, separated it from that preference, then used it in your "if plausibility is what matters then why don't you care about all the other implausible things". But plausibility wasn't, and isn't, what I care about: aesthetics is.

[PrimeJunta]

^

What he said.

 

The boat is ugly. Says so right in the thread title. The rest of it is explanation of why I find it ugly, and what I think could/should be done to make it less ugly. I suggest looking at real ships because I believe that modelling a cool-looking sailing ship from scratch without doing so is unlikely to succeed.

 

That's really all there is to it. This geeking out about specific ship types is fun but doesn't really have anything to do with the argument I'm making. It is an argument from aesthetics, and I continue to believe that it would be possible to have a cool-looking ship and cool shipboard gameplay.

[Cerebro83]

I'm not an expert on ships, but I don't find it that ugly. Maybe just a bit bland for a "stronghold" location. Also, if I had to choose, I'd prefer if they spend their time on improving the movement of the hull and sails, because right now the ship feels a bit static.

Edited February 26, 2017 by Cerebro83

[bonarbill]

^

What he said.

 

The boat is ugly. Says so right in the thread title. The rest of it is explanation of why I find it ugly, and what I think could/should be done to make it less ugly. I suggest looking at real ships because I believe that modelling a cool-looking sailing ship from scratch without doing so is unlikely to succeed.

 

That's really all there is to it. This geeking out about specific ship types is fun but doesn't really have anything to do with the argument I'm making. It is an argument from aesthetics, and I continue to believe that it would be possible to have a cool-looking ship and cool shipboard gameplay.

 

In your opinion.  I think the boat looks fine and they shouldn't bother trying to adjust things for a few whiners.

[PrimeJunta]

In your opinion.  I think the boat looks fine and they shouldn't bother trying to adjust things for a few whiners.

 

They are actively soliciting feedback. Even said so right in this thread. You're just as welcome to give yours as I am to give mine, and naturally it's up to them to decide what they want to do with it.

 

(The boat's a minor thing FWIW, I'm much more upset at the decision to remove health/endurance and per-rest spells.)

[Fenixp]

Well to be fair, I have no idea about ships in general and the ship in Deadfire, as presented, does look kinda bland.

 

Wouldn't call it 'Ugly' per se, but I'd expect to see that parked somewhere in a dock with an NPC wanting to give me a quest, not as a base of operations I'll keep returning to.

Edited February 26, 2017 by Fenixp

[Gromnir]

^

What he said.

 

The boat is ugly. Says so right in the thread title. The rest of it is explanation of why I find it ugly, and what I think could/should be done to make it less ugly. I suggest looking at real ships because I believe that modelling a cool-looking sailing ship from scratch without doing so is unlikely to succeed.

 

That's really all there is to it. This geeking out about specific ship types is fun but doesn't really have anything to do with the argument I'm making. It is an argument from aesthetics, and I continue to believe that it would be possible to have a cool-looking ship and cool shipboard gameplay.

not done after all?

 

anywho, is fine just as long as pretend and Highly arbitrary notions o' plausibility and realism is sent to walk the plank. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Quillon]

Aside from boat's comeliness stat my nitpick(not that the looks of the boat is a nitpick) is if we'd control whole party on the boat while out of combat & in the middle of the ocean; since video shows the party is in formation with no combat going on towards the end. I'd prefer all other current party members relax at some part of the deck than follow PC around in the "small" ship while we are making the rounds & checking on everyone etc.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Quillon