Development Info Knights of the Chalice 2 Development Update

[almondblight]

You try to make it fair and coherent. But on a single player game, where it doesnt matter one tiny little fuck if the player ends up making the game too easy by overleveling, collecting the strongest artifacts in the whole world and relying on strong builds i just dont see the point on trying to keep shit balanced, after all thats called being prepared, and punishing preparation just for the sake of challenge is missing the whole point/fun of these games.

Well, I enjoy the challenge of building an effective party. If one skill is clearly superior to the others, it's like playing a strategy game where one unit is superior to all of the others. I don't see many people asking why units have to be balanced in a strategy game.

 

[Lhynn]

"I'd guess the people who care are the players who make choices that, due to design's carelessness, lead to frustrating, dead-end gameplay experiences."

As i said, you dont plan your game around munkins, so i dont see how it could lead to frustrating dead-end gameplay for people that arent. plus in a non completely linear game you can give the player the option to get stronger before facing the next challenge.

"Players typically respond well to difficulty that moves on a 'rollercoaster' over the course of the game. If a single weapon or set of weapons allows the player to crest and effectively coast through rest of the game, it's often a less enjoyable experience."

Pretty much what i said, you cant have all fights be challenging.

Well, I enjoy the challenge of building an effective party. If one skill is clearly superior to the others, it's like playing a strategy game where one unit is superior to all of the others. I don't see many people asking why units have to be balanced in a strategy game.

We all do, thats why you try to be fair and coherent. But you dont make choices for your player when it comes to preferences, you dont just take it away because you think he wont enjoy it, he might, especially if the cost for doing so is next to non-existant.

 

[almondblight]

We all do, thats why you try to be fair and coherent. But you dont make choices for your player when it comes to preferences, you dont just take it away because you think he wont enjoy it, he might, especially if the cost for doing so is next to non-existant.

You do that all the time when you're designing a game. Cut things that don't work, add things that do. This is no different.

Now, I can understand the appeal of having lots and lots of stuff. But, for example, I personally prefer the fewer unique units in Starcraft than I do the more numerous bland units in Warcraft III, half of whom seem to be the same as other units. Choosing between proficiencies for short sword, longsword, scimitar, katana, gladius, etc. when they all do the same thing is a mindless fluff choice.

 

[Lhynn]

We all do, thats why you try to be fair and coherent. But you dont make choices for your player when it comes to preferences, you dont just take it away because you think he wont enjoy it, he might, especially if the cost for doing so is next to non-existant.

You do that all the time when you're designing a game. Cut things that don't work, add things that do. This is no different.

Now, I can understand the appeal of having lots and lots of stuff. But, for example, I personally prefer the fewer unique units in Starcraft than I do the more numerous bland units in Warcraft III, half of whom seem to be the same as other units. Choosing between proficiencies for short sword, longsword, scimitar, katana, gladius, etc. when they all do the same thing is a mindless fluff choice.

Weapon speed, min-max damage, crit range/damage, accuracy, armor penetration, weight, size, material, availability, legality, general difficulty to master, effiency on a formation, type of wounds it inflicts, reach(min and max), special attacks (throw, stun, knowdown, knockback, disarm, break weapon, etc) and lots of stuff ive probably missed.
Mindless fluff choice? only if you are lazy. But where im going at is not how different can a weapon be from the other, im just saying, stuff needs to be there because the concept of roleplaying is playing a role, what role? your choice. Does the game allow you to play that role? depends on the limitations of the character creation.

 

[Shannow]

What's going on here? I thought we already had a "Sawyer wants to end fun" thread...

 

[Clockwork Knight]

People specialize in rare weapons then get butthurt when it turns out they really are rare.

There is no way to know how rare a weapon type is until you play the game. For all I know, your version of medieval europe might be filled with katanas.

 

[Lhynn]

People specialize in rare weapons then get butthurt when it turns out they really are rare.

There is no way to know how rare a weapon type is until you play the game. For all I know, your version of medieval europe might be filled with katanas.

It was solved with a single line of text in BGII.

 

[Damned Registrations]

People specialize in rare weapons then get butthurt when it turns out they really are rare.

There is no way to know how rare a weapon type is until you play the game. For all I know, your version of medieval europe might be filled with katanas.

Moreover, people keep using katanas as the example, but there are a dozen types of european appropriate swords. Longswords, shortswords, bastard swords, rapiers, sabres, cutlasses... and a rapier isn't even close to a sabre. Not to mention all the other non sword weapon types. No game is going to have multiple interesting weapons of each type. Hell, they'd be hard pressed to even cram in a single, boring example of each type. Letting the player use the ashes of a hydra to forge a powerful weapon of his choice is a good idea instead of just saying "LOL, the hydra was sitting on a +2 spear of venom, hope you can use that shit" or making every weapon in the game a longsword.

 

[FeelTheRads]

It was solved with a single line of text in BGII.

But is it enough? No, you have to account for people who can't read, people can read but don't believe what they read, people who can read but don't understand what they read, people who are too simply too dumb to play video games but they have sweet money and so on. The safest way is just to remove "katanas" and make everything perfectly equal in every way. Then it's FUN for everyone.

It's a fucking crime to be able to play a perfectly viable character but not the best character possible in the game, I'm telling you.

 

[Grunker]

There is no way to know how rare a weapon type is until you play the game. For all I know, your version of medieval europe might be filled with katanas.

You realize the description of katanas in BG2 said "Careful! Magical katanas are extremely rare," right?

That said, the groups from BG1 were much more functional.

 

[Lhynn]

It was solved with a single line of text in BGII.

But is it enough? No, you have to account for people who can't read, people can read but don't believe what they read, people who can read but don't understand what they read, people who are too simply too dumb to play video games but they have sweet money and so on. The safest way is just to remove "katanas" and make everything perfectly equal in every way. Then it's FUN for everyone.

It's a fucking crime to be able to play a perfectly viable character but not the best character possible in the game, I'm telling you.

You fucking cunt, you just made my day.

 

[mediocrepoet]

I've always been sad that no D&D CRPG has ever let me live out my dream of playing a khopesh master.

 

[mondblut]

I've always been sad that no D&D CRPG has ever let me live out my dream of playing a khopesh master.

Well, you can have khopesh in Stone Prophet. Even a pretty good magical one. But there are no weapon proficiences in that game, I am afraid.

 

[mediocrepoet]

I've always been sad that no D&D CRPG has ever let me live out my dream of playing a khopesh master.

Well, you can have khopesh in Stone Prophet. Even a pretty good magical one. But there are no weapon proficiences in that game, I am afraid.

I just had a wave of deja vu. I'm pretty sure I've made that dumb comment before and you told me exactly that. Thanks for the reminder!

I might have to go back into those awful first person Ravenloft games just to see the implementation of the worst sword in AD&D.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

There is no way to know how rare a weapon type is until you play the game. For all I know, your version of medieval europe might be filled with katanas.

You realize the description of katanas in BG2 said "Careful! Magical katanas are extremely rare," right?

That said, the groups from BG1 were much more functional.

Like Registrations said, katanas were just an example. It could apply to rubber ducks. Do I specialize in rubber ducks? Are they rare? Should be, but how can I know?

And in any case that's a bit of a heavy-handed approach (do we add such a note to every game where it's possible to especialize in a rare weapon type, or...?) and I was talking about games in general, since Excidium's statement was more general too.

It was solved with a single line of text in BGII.

But is it enough? No, you have to account for people who can't read, people can read but don't believe what they read, people who can read but don't understand what they read, people who are too simply too dumb to play video games but they have sweet money and so on. The safest way is just to remove "katanas" and make everything perfectly equal in every way. Then it's FUN for everyone.

It's a fucking crime to be able to play a perfectly viable character but not the best character possible in the game, I'm telling you.

What about people who are always so angry that they always miss the point?

 

[FeelTheRads]

What about people who are always so angry that they always miss the point?

Hilarious. Except... on one hand you say that you don't know if they're rare, on the other hand you say that you shouldn't get warnings about it. So umm.. which is it then? No type of item should be rare, yes?

 

[Clockwork Knight]

No type of item should be rare, yes?

I said that while "WARNING: KATANAS ARE RARE, TAKE LONGSWORDS INSTEAD" is the approach BG took, it's not necessarily the definitive solution to this problem. What about the rubber duckies? They sound like they're kind of rare, but maybe the world is full of silver duckies and mythril duckies. I don't know. Do we add a warning for that? Do we add such a warning to every game where there are multiple weapon types? Wouldn't it be better to just avoid this sort of "HAHAHA, GOTCHA - YOU CHOSE...POORLY" design so the player doesn't have to be warned in advance?



in before FeelTheRads's patented "LOOK AT ME, THIS IS YOU - HUUUUR I AM VERY DUMB! LOL PWND BITCH, REALLY MADE YOU LOOK STUPID UH?" reply

 

[FeelTheRads]

I'm not for warnings and no, I don't think that kind of design should be avoided because I don't think it's bad design. I don't think it's "haha gotcha", I think it's just a different way of playing. I really don't understand how ending up with a less than optimum character is seen as a trick developers play on you.

By the way, theoretically you're not even supposed to know (well, ok, in the case of items you do since you keep seeing all other items except those you can use) unless you replay and get a better one.

Plus, in a party game, you can easily make up for a character that's not quite as strong for a good part of the game, and isn't it awesome when you finally get something for him as well?

 

[Clockwork Knight]

"Less than optimum character" isn't a problem generally, but what if I end up with "shit character" because I didn't guess there are, say, only two decent axes in the game apart from the shitty starting iron type, one of them being found late in the game and the other is a 0.001% drop from a rare enemy?

Last sentence is a good point, but still sounds like making the best out of questionable design (isn't it cool when a shitty character finally becomes somewhat useful?). If life gives you lemons, should have picked longswords instead.

 

[Lancehead]

One could try to balance rare weapons with frequent weapons by implementing mechanically why the weapon type is rare. Most likely because it's more powerful, more versatile, etc., so the character can make do with fewer upgrades of the type over the length of the game. Of course, that introduces the danger of trivialising sections of the game where you get new weapons.

Personally, I prefer that chargen doesn't more or less dictate how a character develops.

 

[Lhynn]

Yes, we add a fucking warning. If the character the player is playing has knowledge of the world he/she is in, then he should at least know that and a warning should be given. And even if the main quest involves several battles against members of the order of the duck, an obscure organization that fights with rubber ducks as their main weapon, we still should give the warning, because the character does not know they exist.

It is the fucking definite solution, it is practical and it gives the player an idea of the world he is in by giving him clues about the way habitats of this particular world usually fight, their technological level and even the culture they are supposedly mirroring on the real world.

 

[Average Manatee]

Magical artifacts are supposed to be rare too, yet you can't go 5 steps without tripping over one in most RPGs.

Systems that force razor-sharp focus on weapon types are just stupid. Plain and simple.

 

[FeelTheRads]

"Less than optimum character" isn't a problem generally, but what if I end up with "shit character" because I didn't guess there are, say, only two decent axes in the game apart from the shitty starting iron type, one of them being found late in the game and the other is a 0.001% drop from a rare enemy?

Well, I don't know, where is this really the case? Since we started with katanas, are katanas really THAT rare that you can't play the game? Because typically this kind of complaint sounds to me like just what I said: "waaah, i played and finished an RPG with a less than optimum character I've been cheated horribly waaah".

Yes, I realize there are those who don't like that some characters have it way more tough than others, but I say fuck them. If you want guaranteed equal difficulty for everyone, play a shooter.

 

[almondblight]

Weapon speed, min-max damage, crit range/damage, accuracy, armor penetration, weight, size, material, availability, legality, general difficulty to master, effiency on a formation, type of wounds it inflicts, reach(min and max), special attacks (throw, stun, knowdown, knockback, disarm, break weapon, etc) and lots of stuff ive probably missed.

Yes, you can make different and unique weapons, but in how many games are you thinking about the efficiency on a formation before equipping something? The other thing is that about half of those aren't actually terribly interesting and fall into DPS territory or rock paper scissors territory in a lot of systems. You run the numbers in your head and decide X weapon is objectively better than Y weapon - it hits twice with 10 - 15 points of damage rather than once with 10 points of damage, or as a +2 weapons it can actually hurt this monster and the +1 weapon can't.

It's not that you never get interesting trade-offs, but that you rarely do.

But even then, specialization just makes things worse. Now you have a single class of weapons with a huge boost, meaning most of the time you're going to go with those instead of trying to evaluate the tradeoffs with other weapons. So "Yay, more skills!" turns into "Oh, fewer choices," since you're incentivized to stick with your specialization.

Mindless fluff choice? only if you are lazy. But where im going at is not how different can a weapon be from the other, im just saying, stuff needs to be there because the concept of roleplaying is playing a role, what role? your choice. Does the game allow you to play that role? depends on the limitations of the character creation.

If you want to through out balance and any concept of making a good system, you can go nuts with mindless fluff choices. You can have 100 different weapon specializations, each with only one or two corresponding weapons in the game. You can through in random skills like dancing and climbing rope, even if there is only one (or perhaps no) skill-check for them in the game. Once dismiss "trying to make systems that actually work" as "lol Sawyer!", why not go all the way with it? In Fallout, telling that guy about plant rotation should have been based on your "Farming" skill, fixing that boxer's relationship should have been done with your "Couple's counseling" skill, you can only get Dogmeat with your animal empathy skill, etc. Sky's the limit.

 

[Lhynn]

I am fucking lost now, DPS territory? no, crit/crit range are more on the spike damage territory, armor penetration depending on its implementation should go to the burst damage area. and yes, on BGI it was commonly accepted that proyectile weapons for every party member were very important, thus you had an "archer" formation. on IWD i remember having members with reach weapons to fight behind tanks. everything can have tactical relevance if you do it well.

Specialization does not make things worse, fucktards that build their games around all warriors being specialized is the real root of the problem, specialization shouldnt be something to "keep up", it should be something to make you stand out. But not only that, it should open new tactical possibilities, not close others. A warrior with a whip and a warrior with an halberd should play wildly different, not only in numbers but also in the type of actions they can take in a single round, thus making every weapon a small "spellbook" and specialization a way to get new "spells".

And there is a limit to how much skillchecks you want and how specific they can be. else if you dont trim the hair in your ass, the next time you take a dump it could end up never getting out, why should it be auto success? ive had a couple dogs go tru that, and it wasnt pretty solving that problem.

Seriously, you think in a way thats too abstracted, too impractical, you overanalize and go to extremes too stupid to even bother discussing. You should figure out this stuff easily, its common sense.