Obsidian's Pillars of Eternity [BETA RELEASED, GO TO THE NEW THREAD]

[Gord]

While I would like to actually experience a Sawyerist rpg balance before making my final judgement, I can't help but think that balancing RPGs solely around combat is stupid for everything but combat-centric aRPGs. If combat is all (or the majority) of what you are going to do, then sure, combat balance is all-important and no one will play an, say Priest of the Gentle Fluffy God if his weapons and spells suck in comparison to a fighter or mage.

However I was always of the opinion that a real RPG is much more than pure combat - and the merrits of non-fighting classes come from their other abilities, esp. in a party-based game were you would actually have the opportunity to make use of synergies and characters can fullfill certain roles instead of having to focus on the one exclusive role of damage-dealer (or rather the MMORPGesque distinction of healer-damage dealer-tank). In such a game e.g. a Thief does not need to deal insane amounts of damage through constant sneak-attacks, since his other abilities (traps, lockpicking, streetwise, etc.) actually become useful.

Of course, if one can't imagine a RPG that does not blandly center around combat(-balance), it might be impossible to imagine that this might actually work out.

 

[Infinitron]

(he even claimed you can't get past certain encounters if you don't have a mage IIRC which is BS obviously)

It is BS, but I think the idea is that:

1) The disparity in that case is a bit too extreme.
2) The game has too many mage battles and not enough of other sorts of difficult battles that can help the other classes shine.

Basically, if fighters and thieves have to work together really hard and use lots of magical items to take down an enemy mage, but a friendly mage can just go "LOL BREACH", then that's bad.

If a fighter who is built a certain way is weak against mages (or certain builds of mages), but there are other fighter builds that might be more effective, then that's okay.

So, if you're unlucky enough to have built an entire party that's weak against mages, you might have some problems. But even so, since the game won't be as "mage-centric" as BG2, they might be good for something else.

 

[uaciaut]

Hah, you're trolling i hope. You can;t actually be dumb enough to think an epee is as easy to wield as a battle axe or a 2h sword.

Not as easy obviously but overstated in some games, here's a two handed sword in real life:

Swords probably illustrate this less (though again there IS a difference), weapons that have a different center of mass are probably even more affected by the strength of the swing - imagine a big mace swung by a wimp who barely lifts it and lets the weigh of the mace's head + gravity do the work vs a viking who's actually turning heads into mush.

Again i'm not obsessed with realism or whatnot and the system won't make or break a game alone but no matter how hard you wanna defend Sawyer on this one using Int as the only damage modifying attribute seems like a shitty, gimmicky superficial way of giving said stat a value in combat since it was the only stat that had no real use in fights compared to the rest.

I'd rather have a system like Fallout2 for example when skills determine combat effectiveness and they're all affected by attributes. That way it's much easier to integrate Int into combat stats since you can just make it have a slight effect on ALL combat skills while keeping str/dex etc the dominant stats for their corresponding combat skill (kind of how luck worked in F2) and it would make much more sense in the context.


I also don't get how this can't lead to balance issues. Sure, having a dumb frontline before while having a Mage with high int perform as both the spellcaster and the spokesperson may not have been the best thing in the world, but in this scenario Mages have Str as a dump-stat while Fighters have no dump stat (unless resolves is near worthless for them) so they're a disadvantages class from the start. I'd say that a pretty unbalanced situation.

 

[SCO]

While I would like to actually experience a Sawyerist rpg balance before making my final judgement, I can't help but think that balancing RPGs solely around combat is stupid for everything but combat-centric aRPGs. If combat is all (or the majority) of what you are going to do, then sure, combat balance is all-important and no one will play an, say Priest of the Gentle Fluffy God if his weapons and spells suck in comparison to a fighter or mage.

P:E separates the point allocation pools for social skills and combat skills. so even the priest of the Gentle Fluffy God can crush heads in combat...

 

[Infinitron]

P:E separates the point allocation pools for social skills and combat skills.

Nah this is out of date information. Eternity doesn't have discrete "social skills" in the first place; all non-combat skills also provide advantages in combat.

 

[SCO]

oh ok.

 

[Delterius]

It's actually very similar to how Bioware thinks, that all choices should be equal and none should punish the players.

Not really, no.

'BioWare' believes that it isn't cost efficient to create mutually exclusive content. And I suppose given the games they make, they are right.

But that's the problem, Josh doesn't want you to feel gimped

I'm sure Roguey can find us the quote where Sawyer explicity says that he wants you to feel the consequence of your actions. I paraphrase, but its something along the lines of 'in a given situation, you'll sometimes feel bad for choosing class X and great for choosing class Y'.

I don't think that making sure every build is systemically viable, that the player can toy with whatever archetype his stupid little mind can come up with, isn't the same as tailoring the game's content to the dumbest party composition. Sawyer's focus, I think, is in streamlining and, at the same time, in giving us more tools for character building. Its a stated goal that useless characters can't be built because of stupid things like the player hadn't yet realized the mathematical intricacies of BAB. Or simply because there aren't the tools necessary to make that archetype viable. It all doesn't really mandate anything over encounter design.

Not that PoE would actually have to sacrifice much in terms of encounter design (in relation to IE legacy) in order for dumb party compositions to be viable.

 

[coffeetable]

That's genuinely cool, but we didn't Kickstart a game called Fuck You: Suck My Dick: Josh Sawyer's Personal Dream RPG Experience where I do whatever I personally think is sound and neat and good. For better or worse, this was pitched as an IE-like game. It's great that you view the experiences as more abstract than the nuts and bolts, but no, people clearly do not trust me/us to make a good game that is significantly mechanically different. And I know from experience that sort of attitude can poison a player's entire reception of the game.

owns

 

[Infinitron]

That's genuinely cool, but we didn't Kickstart a game called Fuck You: Suck My Dick: Josh Sawyer's Personal Dream RPG Experience where I do whatever I personally think is sound and neat and good. For better or worse, this was pitched as an IE-like game. It's great that you view the experiences as more abstract than the nuts and bolts, but no, people clearly do not trust me/us to make a good game that is significantly mechanically different. And I know from experience that sort of attitude can poison a player's entire reception of the game.

owns

lol Spiderweb

 

[Infinitron]

Oh btw Roguey

Classless systems are more homogenous and I don't find anything inherently special about them. Jeff Vogel's Exile and Avernum are classless and it didn't do them any favors. Shadowrun is classless and its character system is terribaaaaaaaaad. Classes in a party based game = good.

If we were making "a" party-based fantasy game, it would be questionable that we'd even have classes

 

[Merlkir]

Fuck You: Suck My Dick: Josh Sawyer's Personal Dream RPG Experience.

10/10

 

[Sensuki]

I guess that's what happens when you care about minority opinions and trying to please as many people as possible

 

[Evil Melonhead]

It is reasonable to abstract Intellect into damage, since Strength would logically affect melee attacks only, but there should still be some use for Strength in damage calculation. I have thought about the kinetic aspect of Strength once more, and it occurred to me that Strength also translates into explosive speed. This way even the spell-casting classes have definite utility for having invested in physical power.

Let's assume that the PoE character system has scale 1-10 point buy for attributes, with 5 being the baseline. Strength should signify the speed bonus the characters have when they enter combat, and now Constitution would also affect how long the character is able to uphold his state of adrenaline rush.

If STR > 5, PC's initial speed is multiplied via formula x1.(STR-5)
If STR = 5, no bonus nor malus.
If STR < 5, PC's speed baseline is actually x0.(STR+5), so the PC begins with regular 1x speed that slows down.

If CON > 5, PC's initial speed slows down -0.(11-CON), and PC will face a winding penalty round if his speed doesn't baseline evenly. For example, a STR 10 CON 7 character follows round speeds x1.5 => x1.1 => x1.1 (*another round) => x0.7 (winding) => x1.0
If CON = 5, PC always baselines without winding after the initial round.
If CON < 5, before returning back to baseline speed, the PC suffers an extra winding period of -0.1 for 5-CON rounds.

*PC gains a bonus speedy round whenever he is only 0.1 multiplier away from his baseline and then is set to have a winding penalty equal or greater than 0.3

The balancing might be less than ideal, but I think it would be very interesting to consider the tradesoffs whether to utilize front loaded berserkers that deal less damage, but disrupt enemy initiative, or trying to make a team that hits hard, but initially has difficulty to stay up with the opponents. You can imagine the pain if your group faces hostile spell-casters with high Strength and Constitution, since they may be able to outcast your mages for a good while.

 

[AW8]

Fuck You: Suck My Dick: Josh Sawyer's Personal Dream RPG Experience.

10/10

Rename the thread!

 

[SCO]

Oh fuck your STR obsession.

 

[Sensuki]

Fuck You: Suck My Dick: Josh Sawyer's Personal Dream RPG Experience.

10/10

Rename the thread!

I second this motion

Didn't expect SA to be so butthurt over attributes, well there you go

 

[Delterius]

 

[hoverdog]

Fuck You: Suck My Dick: Josh Sawyer's Personal Dream RPG Experience.

10/10

Rename the thread!

I second this motion

thirded




also: can't be bothered to find and quote one post several pages ago, but someone stated that NPC in party do not actually level up. Is that true or have I misunderstood?

 

[Infinitron]

someone stated that NPC in party do not actually level up. Is that true or have I misunderstood?

Don't remember anybody saying that. Not true.

 

[Sensuki]

also: can't be bothered to find and quote one post several pages ago, but someone stated that NPC in party do not actually level up. Is that true or have I misunderstood?

That's Wasteland 2. The starting chick is like level 14 or something

 

[J_C]

The mod who renamed the thread should consider himself a retard. It this supposed to be funny? Or are you turned on by giving this thread different names?

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

lessened the profanity in the thread title, pls think of the children who might troll these forums k?

 

[Zeriel]

Wait, we're not allowed to have profanity on the Codex? What has become of our motherland?

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

pls think of the children

ps: sick my duck

 

[felipepepe]

I before PoE is just "good for what it is", because Sawyer couldn't do everything he wanted to.