Game News Age of Decadence Demo Released

Dunno what your problem is. There are several ways to deal with the second group in a non-violent manner. What else do you want?

"I can do talky-fighty" - what's that supposed to mean anyway? Do you want to waffle about until they slit their own throats or what?
If you can handle the first group but not the second... have you ever thought about using the doorway to the small side-chamber to fight them one after the other?

Uh, did you not understand what I said? I don't have a problem with the fact that I can't handle them. I was using the encounter as an example of how it was an encounter where a sub-optimal combat-character who had also invested points in talky skills had other results than pure talky or pure combat characters.

With my character, I can take on the first encounter, but it leaves me at two few HP to tackle the second. However, I can get out of the situation by another route that avoids the second encounter, so in this instance my character who is not focused solely on combat or diplomacy can resolve the situation anyways. So the Militades-quest is an example of what I'd like more of. However, playing such a character should be DIFFERENT from pure combat or pure talky, and I find, as you said, that:

and that's a shame... I would like to do a bit of both. It is possible, it just seems much worse than the alternatives. And as I said, that's a shame. The specific example with the Praetor is a good one. It's a character that's supposed to do both from his description, however you're much better off just dedicating yourself completely to either the full combat-route or the full diplo-route.

No, having high INT you can offer a better solution to IG2. The result is, in the eyes of the IG commander your status changes from "dispensable" to "valuable asset". That's why he gives you his best men in IG3 instead of a bunch of other dispensables.

Yes, I misunderstood you apparently.

You can do a bit of both. You definitely can do A BIT OF BOTH.
But wait, you acknowledge that doing a bit of both is possible, you just lament that it's worse than the alternatives. If you split your skill points between social and fighting skills, does it really come as a surprise that you don't excel in either as much as a focused character would? Are you suggesting the game should be balanced for jack of all trades who can succeed at whatever is at hand regardless whether they feel "talky" or "fighty" at the moment?

Thought so.

Focusing on a weapon, a defense skill and one or two other skills doesn't strike me as particularly jack-of-all-trades-ish.

See my example with the Militades quest? I bring that up as an example of a "nice" way to handle talky-fighty characters, because you have options that relay to being one (i.e. you can fight the first encounter and then talk your way out) but it's not necessarily better than being combat or talky. And that's where you misunderstand me again, I think:

No, I'm saying I'm surprised the game isn't balanced around it. Consider this: If truly a jack-of-all-trades was possible, then it would be strictly better than to focus on combat or talking, right? Because it could do both as well as the two others. I'm not asking for that. I'm asking for a combat-talking alternative that doesn't feel completely gimped.

You know what? A good simili is a gish from fantasy games (a fighter/mage type class). There are systems in which these are strictly better than fighters and mage because they do both and thus make the other classes useless. There are systems in which these are inherently gimped, because they can't function near as well as just a straight up fighter or a straight up mage (this would be AoD in the example). Then there are systems that geniusely approach these as archetypes in themselves - balancing by letting them do different stuff instead of just being a mix (see Pathfinder's Magus).

I'm not saying it's completely comparable, I'm just saying that especially in a game like AoD there should be a way to mix and match, since it's an open system. Otherwise there's really little sense in having talking C&C and combat in the same game... might as well have made two different games then. And there sure as hell ain't no reason for the open system.

Disagreed. This problem only arises when you expect to do everything at once in one playthrough. As the game is designed it provides largely different experiences according to character build. Which makes the game really replayable. I already played it ~10 times and I don't think I've discovered everything yet.

I really hoped you would have realized it's not about that after I repeatedly said it wasn't about that:

How is this character doing everything at once? And why is the Praetor even described as a fighter and a leader in the lore if the game is not intended to be played with one?

Vault Dweller has said many, many times that this game is much more enjoyable if you go into it with the intentioin of roleplaying a character. Why am I not allowed to played an the very definition of a Praetor - an officer trained in fighting, etiquette and leadership? Truly, most characters aren't just THE MERCHANT KING or THE STUPID-ASS MERCENARY. The interesting characters to play fall somewhere in between, hence my interest.

AGAIN, I don't want everything in one single-playthrough. You don't even get everything in a single play-through from being all-combat or all-talk, as you've just stated yourself. Why should it be so sub-par to want to play SOME combat-encounters and SOME peaceful resolutions?

So it's roleplaying when you interact with the environment but not when you do it in a text adventure?

You know what - let's stop here. I can see a seriously idiotic discussion coming and that wasn't what my post was about anyway. I just want the "gish problem" answered.

Grunker, seriously, go look up the definition of "most". At least 80% of his post was about there being fundamental flaws in the game. If you genuinely think Marsal said "most" of what you wanted to say - and your defense is this - then you've got fucking rocks in your head.

Which, incidentally, would be a re-design.

Oh please, whoever said the game was unplayable? The only person who ever threw that around was you. And as I've said, if the game is perfectly playable, why are we even bothering about this "less of a problem" or "not really a problem, problem" or however you're defining it?

No really, explain clearly why this is "big enough" of a problem that it needs to be fixed at all. Because what, you're upset that peoople aren't spending their points immediately and they might :shock: reload and change their minds?

You mean this? You either have a problem with the English language, you're trolling me or you're completely fucking dense. My money's on the latter.

Here is your reply to me pointing out why the bandaid solution won't work and will in fact exacerbate the problem:

1. Your first chunk is talking about how it's a problem but it's not really enough of a problem that needs the game to be re-designed.

2. Again, you support forced SP expenditure because you got through the game without saving any SPs at all.

...and that's it. Literally, that's all you've got.

You didn't answer why people are choosing to meta-game in this manner. Instead, you're actually ignoring why they're meta-gaming in this manner and instead preventing them from doing it - because, you know, you got through ok.

Why did you propose the strawman that people wouldn't reload 10 hours of game-play with the "forced SP expenditure" system when there isn't even 10 hours of game-play in the demo for them to reload? And yet they're reloading, save scumming and hoarding SP?

Why do you seem to admit that in AoD, those crucial couple of skill-points could make a difference to the game's binary skill checks if invested in the right area (which, duh, is why people are doing this in the first place), then seem to argue that a few skill points doesn't matter?

Grunker, why are you so upset that some people are choosing to save their SPs (to get around the game's binary skill checks and lack of information) rather than spending them immediately? Why do you feel that these players need to be forced to spend their SPs the minute they get them? Does hearing about other people playing games differently to how you do upset you that much?

I took the liberty of high-lighting some key points.

So we accept that we have a game which has some seriously broken design. No ifs, no buts. And please don't try and now argue that this problem isn't a major issue. You just said as clear as day "big problem", "major design flaw" and "broken as fuck" so for the love of all that is holy, stop your bullshit attempts at weaseling around that. Stop pretending you think this "isn't that much of a problem". You cannot on the one-hand use any of those words, only to turn around on the other hand and say "Oh but it's not that bad!! No really!!".

Now here's the truth: You don't actually understand what the problem is (which to be honest, given what you've said, unsaid, counter-said and then contradicted yourself saying, isn't surprising). Which is why you keep tripping over yourself about whether or not you agree with what Marsal said, most of what Marsal said or only 1/10ths of it or whatever.

This is what you think the problem is "The problem here is that save-scumming breaks this". You believe the problem is save-scumming (or SP hoarding) itself.

This isn't what Marsal said. Not in any way what-so-ever. Not even 1/10ths or what he said agrees with this being "the problem". Nor is it what I believe the problem is.

Again, the problem as Marsal defined it is: "In AoD you have a bazillion skills that are not clearly defined and overlap in their use and usefulness. The quests can be resolved in any number of different ways, with little room for improvisation or player agency. It's essentially a case of tyranny of choices and having no ability to influence their effects after they have been made, without save scumming. [...] Now make a thief? You'll want a weapon skill, a defensive skill, sneak, steal, lockpick, traps, streetwise, maybe critical strike, maybe disguise, maybe alchemy. That's about 7+ skills. To make matters worse, you can't improvise with the sneak skill, either you pass the check or you die."

Let's break that down:

1. The skills are not clearly defined. They overlap in their use and usefulness. Multiple skills do the same thing, or at least it seems that they should. So the player is uncertain on which skill to actually put their points into (notice how forced SP expenditure won't help this and will actually exacerbate the problem).
2. The quests can be solved in different ways, but only if you've got "the magically correct" skill at the time. You have no idea of knowing what's coming up and again, don't know what to invest into until after the fact (once again, forced SP expenditure doesn't help the player get around this).
3. There is no room for error. If you fail a skill check - such as you're short a point on something- YOU DIE! You get dumped in impossible combat situations and are forced to reload. There's no "run away" option (Again, how is forced SP expenditure actually going to help solve this?).

The problem is, the player wants to role-play the thief or the diplomat or the whatever but the game doesn't let him. He only finds out after the fact that instead of putting points into Buttkissing, he should've put them into Cocksucking instead. They seemed like the same skill but the check he encountered used the other one and the gamer had no way of knowing which one to go for... or he just needed a couple of more points put into it and then his DIE encounter would've turned into a WIN and he'd have been able to get through.

So as I've said already, save-scumming is not the problem. It's the solution to the game's deep design flaws in that it dumps you into "do or die" situations with no escape. How is the thief to know that his sneak wasn't high enough unless he tries to sneak and then finds out after the fact that it failed?

Now crucially, Marsal points out that exact fore-knowledge is not the solution here (IE: Telling the player that a "sneak check Level 50 is coming up"). The real problem is that there's no way out. There's no "soft landing". It is literally, "oh shit, I died". And the only way for the thief to get passed that check (as a thief, which he's role-playing) is to go back and take those points out of whatever and put them into whatever else.

That, my friend, is the problem. Now let's look at the proposed solutions...

Ok first point, I really like how you completely over-exagerate everything. "I didn't say the game was unplayable!" (when no-one did). "They'd have to reload 10 hours!!", and now "a million years!".

Now let's be realistic here. In AoD, there are some crucial times when having 5 or so extra points in something comes in very handy indeed. Not necessarily 10 or 20 points, just those few. There's also no reason to spend every skill point the minute you get it because for the whole, it doesn't matter except for those crucial PASS or DIE dialogue situations where it becomes critical.

On the other hand, there's also combat which a lot of people are struggling with. If you lose combat, you DIE. So you have to either find a way to WIN that combat encounter (which someone role-playing a Mercenary might want to think they should be capable of doing, for example) or you need a way to avoid it. Both scenarios mean having the right skills. You either need the right level of Cocksucking to pass the dialogue check... or you need to throw more points into Block, take the opportunity to craft the right set of armour and grab yourself a two-handed or a long-range weapon and stock up on extra nets. The problem is (and again, this is the actual problem) the player doesn't know any of this information until you encounter the WIN OR DIE situation.

Once you've encountered it, you can spend appropriately and alter your character as necessary.

This of course, is best fixed by re-designing those parts and making it some-what clearer to the player that a WIN OR DIE situation is coming up (sorry but some vague mention that "something doesn't seem right" doesn't cut it) or by providing an "out" for those DIE situations (IE: Other than re-loading and picking the "avoid" option because again, that's meta-gaming the system).

Providing an "out" isn't that simple though again because of the way the game has been designed. If you're a thief and you're investing in sneak - but you just don't have enough to pass that dialogue skill check - then you're dumped straight into a combat situation that you can't win. The game basically needs to be re-designed so that it doesn't "dump you right in it" (perhaps by going back to a more traditional sneak system) and that's a major re-design.

So if we take Marsal's band-aid and apply it, what happens? The player is dumped into WIN OR DIE situations that they can't escape from. Given that, the only way through is to re-load. All your system does is force them to reload much more of the game than they otherwise would have, had they been able to hoard skill points. Because let's face it (to borrow your over-exageration) re-loading 10 hours is better than having to start all over again and re-play through 30 hours just to get to the same point.

Quote where I said the game was unplayable.

No really, go look for the word "unplayable". That was - and always has been - a strawman you threw up. It's never been anything I've actually said. Again, you seem to be having issues actually understanding what you're reading.

Right now, the game is too binary. As you've pointed out, it's either all combat or all talky. Not even a little bit of both? It also means the game is too harsh and unforgiving on players who dare to put a point in anything other than their focus.

Well to be honest, I've never been particuarly interested in "choose your own adventure" books with broken combat systems (seriously, this combat system has been tested, right? Did none of the testers bother to try Dodge?). I also prefer RPGs with world exploration and a point to walking around towns (you know, useful loot you can find, stuff you can steal from people - using non-combat skills in the game-world rather than just in dialogue). And yeah, magic dialogue teleportation... In Oblivion they called that fast-travel and AOD's method is actually worse.

You can play a Praetor in exactly this manner. That's a fucking fact. Splitting your skills will still leave you less of a combat giant than a purely combat focused character. That's where your social skills come in, you can for instance use the raiders to raid the Aurelian outpost for you.

You're grasping at straws. Neither is it impossible to play SOME combat-encounters and SOME peaceful solutions nor is it in any way "sub-par".