Game News Age of Decadence Post-Release Update #1: 10,000 copies sold, upcoming updates and future projects

[MrMarbles]

I imagine the Colony Ship RPG having a certain style that hopefully players will find unique, but I have yet to develop the setting's visuals so right now it's just in my head. Once I wrap up the remaining tasks for AoD, I'll develop some ideas and (assuming the team likes them) share them with the codex.

The semi-budget movie Pandorum (2009) has some nice visuals/setting for a generation ship. It's also a decent movie, so doing the research shouldn't be a chore. Remember to bill VD for the full runtime.

 

[Sitra Achara]

No (not for this game, at least). I want to try something different and see if it works. If not, we'll go with what we did in AoD.

Are you talking about adding 'gameplay' to dialogue? I recall you had a discussion with DU about sthg like that, is that it?

Edit: I meant this
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...adence-march-update.70771/page-5#post-2031232

 

[Vault Dweller]

AoD dialogue system has two main flaws:

- it's passive, you either have the skill or you don't
- you do nothing but level up and select lines that match your highest skill; the other lines are flavor, basically.

So to improve we need to:
- give you the tools to modify the checks by paying attention to what the man says and actually thinking of what to "say"
- use the skills to modify the checks (not to pass them) and get rid of tags. Basically, first you talk and learn more about your "opponent". Stats and skills can help you unlock more topics to learn more. Then you "make your case" and select whichever lines you think would make a stronger case. The outcomes will be modified by what you said before (we tried that in AoD to get a feel of how it works, like talking to the praetor investigating Senna's murder) and your skills, thus it can differ from one playthrough to the next.

It does make sense in theory, whether or not it will actually work remains to be seen.

 

[Irenaeus II]

Not a bad idea. Hope it works.

I like what we have already, just to be clear.

 

[Vault Dweller]

We'll try it first, see how it works. It it doesn't work, we'll scrap it. If it works, we'll do a quick demo and get some feedback.

 

[hivemind]

So something along the lines of what Human Revolution had for some of the important 'arguments' ?

 

[Black]

Interesting stuff, but what about more... contemporary approach? You know, so that more people can enjoy it

Spoiler

 

[Vault Dweller]

So something along the lines of what Human Revolution had for some of the important 'arguments' ?

Only in a sense that you have different lines and your opponent responds better to certain lines. However, in DX:HR the outcomes were set in stone, unless I'm mistaken, and you could simply pick the right lines without paying attention to anything. I want a skill-based system where a) skills matter a lot and b) you can also change someone's mind.

Let's say a certain person believes that democracy is good. You can either exploit this belief for your own gain, strengthen it for the faction, or convince him that it's a road to hell paved with good intentions. I didn't play DX for the dialogues and thus can't say but I don't think such range is possible with that system.

The idea is that convincing a person should feel like an achievement, like winning a tough fight, instead of merely choosing (or guessing) the right line.

 

[Tigranes]

That's what I was getting at by recommending more of Lorenza. The problem there is that it will take exponentially more work for each conversation, so you have to go for fewer conversations. It might be useful to focus on few NPCs you talk to over and over again, so that it decreases the load on the player as well. The player learns more about that single important NPC and uses that accumulated knowledge for the next conversation, and the ways you influenced him (or messed up) in the past will also be remembered - making each NPC into a kind of mini C&C machine.

Of course, what will happen is people will still want to game the system by learning exactly the skills necessary, and then complain that it's too hard to figure out. I suppose it also means you have to really make sure that people don't end up getting into dead ends.

 

[hivemind]

Only in a sense that you have different lines and your opponent responds better to certain lines. However, in DX:HR the outcomes were set in stone, unless I'm mistaken, and you could simply pick the right lines without paying attention to anything. I want a skill-based system where a) skills matter a lot and b) you can also change someone's mind.

Let's say a certain person believes that democracy is good. You can either exploit this belief for your own gain, strengthen it for the faction, or convince him that it's a road to hell paved with good intentions. I didn't play DX for the dialogues and thus can't say but I don't think such range is possible with that system.

The idea is that convincing a person should feel like an achievement, like winning a tough fight, instead of merely choosing (or guessing) the right line.

Ye, HR just had win/lose condition for each of the conversation 'battles' based on picking the correct response several times in a row and even then there was just a few of them anyhow.

Your idea/plan sounds really good but it also seems like something that's going to add immensely to the wordcount if changing someone's mind is going to be a common occurrence.

 

[cherry blossom]

(no dodging bullets).

Well, you don't dodge an incoming bullet but you can evade a shot at you if your reflexes are good enough to act before the trigger is pulled. Anything to that end?

Firearms

Pistol
Shotgun
SMG​

Energy

Pistol
Rifle
Cannon​

As far as practical operation of ranged weapons go, what inherent difference would there be between firearm pistols and energy pistols?

Anything other than aiming and shooting with different degrees of steadiness / recoil management? Trying to imagine how it would work differently.

 

[Lurker King]

use the skills to modify the checks (not to pass them) and get rid of tags. Basically, first you talk and learn more about your "opponent". Stats and skills can help you unlock more topics to learn more. Then you "make your case" and select whichever lines you think would make a stronger case. The outcomes will be modified by what you said before (we tried that in AoD to get a feel of how it works, like talking to the praetor investigating Senna's murder) and your skills, thus it can differ from one playthrough to the next.

I can foresee the butthurt already: “I have TEN, TEN motherfucking points in persuasion, but I’m always dying on the intro. This game is unfinished. Fallout 4 is better”.

It would be awesome, though. I hope it works.

 

[John Yossarian]

Only in a sense that you have different lines and your opponent responds better to certain lines. However, in DX:HR the outcomes were set in stone, unless I'm mistaken, and you could simply pick the right lines without paying attention to anything. I want a skill-based system where a) skills matter a lot and b) you can also change someone's mind.

Let's say a certain person believes that democracy is good. You can either exploit this belief for your own gain, strengthen it for the faction, or convince him that it's a road to hell paved with good intentions. I didn't play DX for the dialogues and thus can't say but I don't think such range is possible with that system.

The idea is that convincing a person should feel like an achievement, like winning a tough fight, instead of merely choosing (or guessing) the right line.

Are you thinking of going with AoD's binary result, where if you choose a line and fail, you can't choose it again? It might be worth considering a system where previous lines you have chosen affect the checks in future lines, for better or worse, and you can use the lines as many times as you want. The idea is that the dialog line you see is just an abstraction of the actual argument you're making, so if you do things right previously, the argument gets better (easier to pass), and viceversa. So you can still "lose" a dialog if you just pick lines randomly without paying attention to responses, but you can try as much as you want, like in combat.

 

[Invictus]

Maybe this is heresy VD but have you ever thought of a dialogue system that works the other way around? Instead if asigning points to talk skills you actually get those points from picking the "right" options in a dialogue? If you have a streetwise option and tou pick that option it would rise your specific skill for that
I remember the confrontation at the end of Planescape Torment that your stats decided what kind of answers you gave in the last dialogue and another game (cant remember which) that had some sort of fillup meter where tou previous answers gave you options for picking new answrs but if you screwed up with a dumb response your meter took a hit and you had to Pick your options carefully

 

[Vault Dweller]

Well, you don't dodge an incoming bullet but you can evade a shot at you if your reflexes are good enough to act before the trigger is pulled. Anything to that end?

For now we're planning to outsource defense to armor but we're in a very early stage. If you go with a skill, maxing it should make a huge difference (aka dodging bullets and laser beams), which isn't a desirable outcome.

As far as practical operation of ranged weapons go, what inherent difference would there be between firearm pistols and energy pistols?

Anything other than aiming and shooting with different degrees of steadiness / recoil management? Trying to imagine how it would work differently.

Here is how I see it.

I don't want the energy weapons to be like the firearms but different (balanced damage, available, plenty of ammo). There should be a reason why there are firearms in the first place. So the energy weapons are rare (most are broken and no longer in use) and the ammo is even rarer. A loaded energy weapon is an ace up your sleeve. It's not something you use in every fight, it's something that helps you even the odds and survive a tough fight (like that mine near Teron, for example).

Following this logics, ship-made firearms are crude and inaccurate, but fast (multiple barrels, revolvers, burst, etc). Energy weapons are single shot, accurate, and powerful.

Are you thinking of going with AoD's binary result, where if you choose a line and fail, you can't choose it again?

Too early to say, but most likely.

Maybe this is heresy VD but have you ever thought of a dialogue system that works the other way around? Instead if asigning points to talk skills you actually get those points from picking the "right" options in a dialogue? If you have a streetwise option and tou pick that option it would rise your specific skill for that.

Increase by using, basically. I think it works better with combat but I didn't give it much thought.

 

[Bubbles]

Are you considering a Fig campaign?

 

[Vault Dweller]

 

[Invictus]

I have always thought that the leveless skill based system of Darklands is the best ever since you could get better at practicaly anything by doing or going to a teacher. It was so seamless and it made so much sense that I find it hard to belive it has not been used more. For AoD naybe it could have worked too instead of a more pen and paper point assignment at level up; want to get better speech skills go do a speech based quest, or fight some dudes to get ready for a bigger fight
Perhaps for the next game it could be done....

 

[Infinitron]

Maybe this is heresy VD but have you ever thought of a dialogue system that works the other way around? Instead if asigning points to talk skills you actually get those points from picking the "right" options in a dialogue? If you have a streetwise option and tou pick that option it would rise your specific skill for that

In another game they're called Dispositions rather than Skills.

 

[cherry blossom]

For now we're planning to outsource defense to armor but we're in a very early stage. If you go with a skill, maxing it should make a huge difference (aka dodging bullets and laser beams), which isn't a desirable outcome.

Perhaps not with a skill but maybe with a top-end stat eg. DEX 9, 10?

Here is how I see it.

I don't want the energy weapons to be like the firearms but different (balanced damage, available, plenty of ammo). There should be a reason why there are firearms in the first place. So the energy weapons are rare (most are broken and no longer in use) and the ammo is even rarer. A loaded energy weapon is an ace up your sleeve. It's not something you use in every fight, it's something that helps you even the odds and survive a tough fight (like that mine near Teron, for example).

Following this logics, ship-made firearms are crude and inaccurate, but fast (multiple barrels, revolvers, burst, etc). Energy weapons are single shot, accurate, and powerful.

So then shouldn't one good with firearms have an even better shot with an energy pistol, unless practical operation of the tool is completely different?

 

[Vault Dweller]

It depends on what being good with firearms is. For example, would The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly's Tuco be as good with, say, flintlock pistols that have a different grip and firing mechanics or would he need to practice a lot?

 

[Invictus]

Oh my an AoD style game based on the Spagetti western world? Oh ny sign me up for that

 

[TheEntitledOne]

Has anyone already made the joke about the generation ship game requiring several generations of developers to reach AlphaCentaury/Thursday?

Btw, it would be cool if you could go through different generations of PCs in the same game.

 

[Irenaeus II]

Can you romance lady deirdre skye?

 

[khavi]

Can you romance lady deirdre skye?

Only if your background is tree-hugger, or more apt, fungus fucker.