Game News Age of Decadence Demo Released

[hiver]

As for crafting problem; before someone comes in with a smart suggestion of cutting it out or nerfing it in other ways - JUST make some nice hardened armor available from combat encounters dammit.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Crafting techniques will be much harder to get in the game and by harder I don't mean you'll have to kill someone or do a fetch quest. In AoD enemies kill you!

We threw them in the demo to test the system. We got enough feedback to tweak a few things.

 

[Emily]

Yeah definitely +1 for the major nerf of crafting, it is just too good.
Also VD would you even maybe consider cutting it out, for the sake of realism if nothing else?
Learning how to forge a sword, was a trade that was passed down for generations and took many years to learn, it is just weird to be able to do it, while being an adventurer.
Would be much more beliveable if when you ascended to certain noblity or higher ranks, that you could commision an blacksmit to custom make the weapons and armor..
OR at least make it so that you could learn it yourself, or you could just commision it
Think about one nobleman, would he really go down to the smitty and forge himself a sword, it is just not noble work, it is kinda weird at that also. : D

 

[circ]

Jesus christ man. Yeah, let's cut out any chance of customization why don't we. Boohoohoo a merc can finish the game with more goodies than my talker guy.

 

[Gord]

Plus, it's fun, so why remove it? VD already said that it won't be so easy early on, seems ok to me.

 

[Emily]

I am not saying that it should be removed all together, but maybe just make it so that you could comision an blacksmit.. And i think i gave a good reason why i think it makes little sense to have crafting as it is at the moment in the game

 

[CappenVarra]

Well, they won't and can't "nerf" crafting from how it works now, simply because it was never meant to work as it does now at the very start of the game (but only at the very end and after fulfilling the - hard - requirements to get those crafting techniques). Simple, innit?

...

Uhm, so a armchair-designer voice in my head kept pestering me about this one thing, so I had to write it down... Wall of text incoming.

SDCPIC Skill System in the current beta / demo

• 20-35 starting skill score depending on relevant attributes
• 20-100 total resulting skill level range
• 65-80 (depending on starting score) skill levels reachable by investing skill (experience) points; the investment progression is not linear but higher levels require larger investment (there are diminishing returns):
  • 20-50 1:1
  • 50-? 2:1 (2 sp required to raise effective skill level from 50 to 51 etc.)
  • ?

So, in practice, having high (for example) Str and Dex scores means the character starts off with higher combat skills, and that he needs less skill points to reach the point of diminishing returns; however, once he reaches that point, he is completely level with a character who has lower Str and Dex (but higher Int and more skill points to spend, for example) - as far as skill progression goes.

Now obviously, high Str and Dex give other advantages (bonus damage, more AP etc. - all of which increase linearly), so a "brute" character will always be better at combat than a "brainy" one in the end. However, the interaction of attributes and skills is a bit muddled (with some linear and some non-linear effects involved, and different formulas depending on starting scores).

Also, while high-Int characters have to spend more skill points to reach the same physical skill level, they also get more skill points (and better quest rewards) in general; in the end, Int tends to rule the day in SDCPIC as much as it did in SPECIAL.

I'm not 100% sure about this, but I think making the attribute / skill distinction clearer and their effects more straightforward would be a good thing, and that it can be achieved by one simple change.

SDCPIC Skill System change proposal draft v0.42

• 20-35 starting skill score depending on relevant attributes
• 20-100 total resulting skill level range
• each skill can reach an additional 65 skill levels from investing skill (experience) points; the investment progression is not linear but higher levels require larger investment (there are diminishing returns)
  • 0-30 1:1
  • 30-50 2:1 (2 sp required to raise experience investment level from 30 to 31 etc.)
  • 50-65 4:1 (4 sp required to raise experience investment level from 50 to 51 etc.)

The skill level range is exactly the same as before (so skill checks already implemented don't have to be rebalanced).

However, diminishing returns are not applied on the total/effective skill level - they are applied to the skill level investment from experience points only. So, Character A with 10 in Str and Dex would start with most combat skills at 35, and could raise them to 65 at a 1:1 rate; Character B with 4 Str and Dex would start with the same skills at 20, and could only raise them to 50 at a 1:1 rate. Furthermore, while Character A could reach effective level 100 in a combat skill by investing the maximum 65 points, Character B could only reach effective level 85 in the same skill with the same investment.

This even makes sense from an in-character perspective, since the character with high Strength will not hit the point of diminishing returns in Hammer skill at the same skill level as a weakling (i.e. much sooner); furthermore, the character with higher Str will always be better with Hammers than a weaker one - at every point of skill point investment scale.

The effect:
- nerfing Int as a cross-class hybridization panacea
- boosting the effect of physical stats on combat
- encouraging specialization based on attribute scores (even more than it is encouraged now)
- making the attribute / skill interaction math simpler and cleaner
- each attribute point is more important, since it also affects the point of diminishing returns and the maximum skill level (skill cap) reachable
- with this change, you can increase the number of overall skill points (both starting and the rewards, maybe) without encouraging hybrid-supermen characters -> having high Int will give you more skill points and better rewards, but will never allow you to be nearly as good at Hammering things as a brute character can be.

This assumes that the number of available skill points was nerfed because you though making hybrids was too easy, of course...

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

There are very few issues that I would consider serious. Two of those are:
Combat difficulty:

Vince has said that he didn't want difficulty sliders because it would render having different builds moot. Let's say you have an "Easy" difficulty; then a character who would be a mediocre fighter at best normally can wipe the floor with people he otherwise wouldn't have a chance with. The rationale is that it would give the player way too much leeway to be an uber-badass jack-of-all-trades.

While I can appreciate that, adding a difficulty slider that lowers or raises an enemy's hitpoints (edit: and/or yours) isn't negating choices and consequences in different builds, it just helps those of us who may not have an hour to spend trying figure out 1 battle win the darn thing already - even though our character build, strategy, or equipment set is less than optimal. The fact is, not all players have the same level of skill and that's kinda why the difficulty slider was invented. Not saying that I want dialog based characters to be able to win any fight and I'm not saying I want a "win" button put in, but I am saying that I don't need you to hold my hand and help me play the game "hardcore" anymore than I need Bioware and EA to dumb it down and help me play the game casually. Either way I want the choice. If I, the paying customer, want to make the game eaiser for whatever length of time, then that's my business.

Also, the surprise skillchecks - ie, 'you pass a persuasion check, only to have to pass a trading check' etc aren't the biggest issue, but are kinda frustrating. Most other games require one skillcheck per choice - maybe 2 if it's a really complicated. I think this issue can be solved by:

1. Not doing it. Simplify most choices down to one check and maybe have a second check for a bonus outcome.
2. By providing other paths to a similar outcome - ie, persuasion , then either trading or stealing to get x outcome.
3. Some combination of 1 & 2.

Some of the decisions do have a railroaded feel and the teleport is a big part of the issue, however I don't feel this is enough to ruin the game.

Crafting techniques will be much harder to get in the game and by harder I don't mean you'll have to kill someone or do a fetch quest. In AoD enemies kill you!

We threw them in the demo to test the system. We got enough feedback to tweak a few things.

Just quoting this to make sure people see it.

Vault Dweller, FYI: If you would consider some sort of paid beta - so that those of us that don't care about 70% of this crap can finally play this thing - I'd buy it. Something like Mount and Blade had maybe? $15 would be a good price point as far as I'm concerned, considering it's unfinished.

 

[Gord]

- encouraging specialization based on attribute scores (even more than it is encouraged now)

The problem I see with specialization is that the game is fucking schizophrenic regarding allround/specialized characters.
There are simply too many checks (simultanous and succesive) based on two (often enough vastly) different skills, which is encouraging you to spread your points.
At the same time, you also need high scores, so you should better specialize?

In the end the player tries to optimize, through heavy metagaming and reloading.

I wouldn't complain if that would be only the case for side quests. So you can't do all side quests, no biggie.
Unfortunately it happens even in main (faction) quests.
As long as the player has no information about what skills might be needed or some security that a reasonable build should be able to progress through the game, forcing the player to specialize too much won't help the game, I'm afraid.

 

[CappenVarra]

- encouraging specialization based on attribute scores (even more than it is encouraged now)

The problem I see with specialization is that the game is fucking schizophrenic regarding allround/specialized characters.
There are simply too many checks (simultanous and succesive) based on two (often enough vastly) different skills, which is encouraging you to spread your points.
At the same time, you also need high scores, so you should better specialize?

In the end the player tries to optimize, through heavy metagaming and reloading.

I wouldn't complain if that would be only the case for side quests. So you can't do all side quests, no biggie.
Unfortunately it happens even in main (faction) quests.
As long as the player has no information about what skills might be needed or some security that a reasonable build should be able to progress through the game, forcing the player to specialize too much won't help the game, I'm afraid.

True, but the changes from the March update already seem to work on making the skill checks a bit less "schizo" (as you say). The change I proposed actually gives a small boost to early characters (such as in the demo), but makes up for it by requiring specialization for the latter parts - the hardest skill checks (requiring 95 or 100 skill level) can only be passed by characters who have 9 or 10 in the relevant attributes. But since nobody seems to like the idea, nevermind all that