Development Info Josh Sawyer on Utility and Balance in Game Design

[fanta]

You didn't address the "party-based" part of my question, though. _Should_ players even care how well any individual character in the party performs compared to another as long as the party as a whole manages to perform its tasks adequately?

Yes, they should still care because if there are weird imbalances in the party that are assumed to be solved with a "correct" party composition, that implicitly suggests "incorrect" party compositions. It's pretty common in D&D groups to "need" a healer.

This is more fucking worrying than anything else said about PE thus far, including cooldowns. It's Awesome Butten design philosophy applied to the party creation part of the game pure and simple. Press a button (or any combination thereof) and an awesome party pops out!

(One might reply that party creation is not a part of the game proper but only a setup for the game. This is stretching it when party is created once and for all at the start and utterly ridiculous when it can be modified by pre-made NPCs as in PE.)

If by "correct party" in D&D JS means that there is only one possible well-made party, then he's clueless about D&D. If on the other hand he complains that badly-made parties are even possible, well... This is what I'd have expected from Hepler and not Sawyer. A real possibly of failure is an essential part of what a game is. Without it, it's at best "an experience".

 

[Infinitron]

fanta
Again though, in a game with so few NPC companions to recruit, he likely doesn't have a choice either way. It's just not going to be that type of game, where you recruit companions out of a large pool for specific roles in order to create the correct party composition. Less Baldur's Gate, more Torment, I suppose.

(the Adventurer's Hall where you can create your own companions is an optional feature and the game can't rely on it)

 

[Captain Shrek]

Yes, Josh was his replacement. By many accounts, he saved the NWN2 project. Ask Anthony Davis about it.

True story. Chris Avellone and Josh sawyer replaced Ferret with about 4-6 months left in the project.

So who is responsible for the trash mobs?

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

Yes, they should still care because if there are weird imbalances in the party that are assumed to be solved with a "correct" party composition, that implicitly suggests "incorrect" party compositions. It's pretty common in D&D groups to "need" a healer.

This is more fucking worrying than anything else said about PE thus far, including cooldowns. It's Awesome Butten design philosophy applied to the party creation part of the game pure and simple. Press a button (or any combination thereof) and an awesome party pops out!/quote]

I can see why this is worrying, as it implies undifferentiated classes. But the example he cited of a role D&D groups "need", the healer, is a role that probably won't be as prominent in P:E due to the health/stamina mechanic rather than class abilities. Since health won't recover without rest, and stamina will probably recover on its own over time, a healer seems to be much less important to party survivability.

Which brings up another point; its really not clear that the removal of the need for a "correct" party will be done through character class design and how much will be done by combat mechanics and encounter design.

For example, an entire party of rogues could use traps and ambush instead of going toe to toe, quick attacks to interrupt enemy casters, sneak around monsters without a fight and use high magic device skill to fill in for a wizard in a pinch, all without sacrificing the specificity of the other classes.

ETA: Moribund, I didn't see anything particularly bad about his comments on thieves. IMHO, thieves were incredibly useful, but still required other party members to shine. Backstab was powerful, but really only useable once per fight. Then again I was never a huge AD&D Thief player, so you know, grain of salt. In 3E+ though, I definitely find the Fighter/thief to be pretty nasty - throw him into the middle of charging enemies and sneak attacks galore!

 

[hiver]

I think Hiver exploded.

You think thats an explosion?


You have no idea.... NO IDEAAA!

WATCH THIS!



....




... on the other hand ... go suck donkey balls.

I'm mostly talking about his past record with skill-systems, ala Van Buren.

Yeah... you are not even thinking or talking about what he is saying now, or about PE.

so I remain skeptical.

There is a difference between being sceptical and completely convinced you know, while you just completely disregard what he is saying, and base all you say on fucking Van Buren from 10 years ago.

I hate to tell you, Hiver, but we probably won't be sucking his dick together any time soon.

Suck whoevers dick you want faggot. im a forest slurper myself. no wait... uhh that didnt come out right... damn...you know what i mean!


Moribund

The only other solution would be that doctor starts having an effect in combat.

really? thats all you can come up with? for fuck sake...

That's what he is saying,

No, thats what YOU are saying.

Wait, is that confirmed? It sounds unbelievably stupid.

Everything you see in this thread that is unbelievably stupid is a product of the posters who blather that shit.
Its invented. Nobody even mentions anything that retarded except them.


Sawyer is trying to talk but these idiots cannot understand what the fuck he is saying.
And then they argue against themselves.

He even fucking looks like Luke, man.

 

[Hormalakh]

fanta
Again though, in a game with so few NPC companions to recruit, he likely doesn't have a choice either way. It's just not going to be that type of game, where you recruit companions out of a large pool for specific roles in order to create the correct party composition. Less Baldur's Gate, more Torment, I suppose.

(the Adventurer's Hall where you can create your own companions is an optional feature and the game can't rely on it)

This is bullshit Infinitron and you know it. (I came back this one time just to yell at you.) If you are fucking making an adventurer's hall, then make fucking use of it. Companions are there for furthering the story and acting as a sounding board and nothing more. If you need a healer for the tactical combat, then you go and get one. It's as simple as that. The whole idea that there aren't enough companions to cover the tactical requirements in the game is bullshit. If the adventurer's hall is "optional" content and the game "can't rely on it" then what about skill-locked content. How come all of a sudden we HAVE to rely on all content being available for all players?

This is the whole problem I have with Sawyer's mentality. He's implementing 50 different things to solve a single problem and then when you look at the overall implementation you realize it's no longer a "tactical or strategeical" game, everything's been made completely "AWESOME" because all of these innovations together just fuck things up.

With everything put together and all the changes Sawyer is making, what exactly is left of the IE experience? This is starting to look more and more like IE's retarded zombie brother.

 

[evdk]

But anyway, ask yourself, how stupid is it really? BG1 didn't have skills. BG2 didn't have skills. IWD1 didn't have skills. Planescape Torment didn't have skills. These are the inspirations for Project Eternity. Any skill-based goodness you get on top of that is really just a bonus.

This is a bit disingenuous, since the attributes in PS:T worked similarly to skills.

 

[Infinitron]

fanta
Again though, in a game with so few NPC companions to recruit, he likely doesn't have a choice either way. It's just not going to be that type of game, where you recruit companions out of a large pool for specific roles in order to create the correct party composition. Less Baldur's Gate, more Torment, I suppose.

(the Adventurer's Hall where you can create your own companions is an optional feature and the game can't rely on it)

This is bullshit Infinitron and you know it. (I came back this one time just to yell at you.) If you are fucking making an adventurer's hall, then make fucking use of it. Companions are there for furthering the story and acting as a sounding board and nothing more. If you need a healer for the tactical combat, then you go and get one. It's as simple as that. The whole idea that there aren't enough companions to cover the tactical requirements in the game is bullshit. If the adventurer's hall is "optional" content and the game "can't rely on it" then what about skill-locked content. How come all of a sudden we HAVE to rely on all content being available for all players?

This is the whole problem I have with Sawyer's mentality. He's implementing 50 different things to solve a single problem and then when you look at the overall implementation you realize it's no longer a "tactical or strategeical" game, everything's been made completely "AWESOME" because all of these innovations together just fuck things up.

With everything put together and all the changes Sawyer is making, what exactly is left of the IE experience? This is starting to look more and more like IE's retarded zombie brother.

Eh, whatever, dude. MotB has very few companions (and thus no "correct party composition" challenge to speak of) AND crappy combat and people still slobbered all over it. Truth is, the game could be even worse than it's sounding to you right now and still be great. Don't get in such a huff.

But anyway, ask yourself, how stupid is it really? BG1 didn't have skills. BG2 didn't have skills. IWD1 didn't have skills. Planescape Torment didn't have skills. These are the inspirations for Project Eternity. Any skill-based goodness you get on top of that is really just a bonus.

This is a bit disingenuous, since the attributes in PS:T worked similarly to skills.

As they will in PE.

 

[Mangoose]

If you need a healer for the tactical combat, then you go and get one. It's as simple as that. The whole idea that there aren't enough companions to cover the tactical requirements in the game is bullshit.

What? There is no such thing as a "tactical requirement." Tactics are impromptu plans for any variable situation. Tactical challenge comes not from having optimal party composition, but rather from how you win despite strategic disadvantages. In other words, if you have three fighters and no healer, the tactical thought is "How can I come up with a tactic to win without healing, by exploiting the advantages I have with the limited options I have?"

Party composition is within the domain of battle strategy. And even then, permanent choices you make before a 30 hr game does not even count as strategy, unless you have foreknowledge of a wide amount of content that is available in the game. Otherwise it is just guessing and logistics.

Now with an adventurer's hall and foreknowledge of specific encounters/dungeons/battles, and if you were able to modify your party composition at will, that would be a healthy bit of strategy.

If the adventurer's hall is "optional" content and the game "can't rely on it" then what about skill-locked content. How come all of a sudden we HAVE to rely on all content being available for all players?

What? No. Having a balanced amount of content for each skill to use != having every single piece of content be applicable to every skill.

With everything put together and all the changes Sawyer is making, what exactly is left of the IE experience? This is starting to look more and more like IE's retarded zombie brother.

What IE experience? IE experience = mage battles. Stop being retarded and thinking IE games were any bit tactical (outside of mage battles) or strategic.

 

[Hormalakh]

Eh, whatever, dude. MotB has very few companions (and thus no "correct party composition" challenge to speak of) AND crappy combat and people still slobbered all over it. Truth is, the game could be even worse than it's sounding to you right now and still be great. Don't get in such a huff.

You heard it here first folks. Decline is alright as long as 1)it's obsidian doing it and 2) it's not as bad as it could be.

Remember what I told you: decline is always gradual. If you don't stomp it out, it'll just get worse.

 

[Moribund]

Mangoose, you have to have real differences for tactics to exist. Thieves will be useless and healers unnecessary and that's supposed to be good. You can't make a 'bad' party and that's supposed to be good.

Hormalahk, there's nothing gradual about this decline it's like lord humungous's nitro charged kamikazi run into the rig at the end of Road Warrior. And of course it's Obsidian, how dare anyone complain about them! Of course they've yet to do one good thing and it's clear this one will be even worse shit than the previous shit.

fanta
Again though, in a game with so few NPC companions to recruit, he likely doesn't have a choice either way. It's just not going to be that type of game, where you recruit companions out of a large pool for specific roles in order to create the correct party composition. Less Baldur's Gate, more Torment, I suppose.

(the Adventurer's Hall where you can create your own companions is an optional feature and the game can't rely on it)

This is bullshit Infinitron and you know it. (I came back this one time just to yell at you.) If you are fucking making an adventurer's hall, then make fucking use of it. Companions are there for furthering the story and acting as a sounding board and nothing more. If you need a healer for the tactical combat, then you go and get one. It's as simple as that. The whole idea that there aren't enough companions to cover the tactical requirements in the game is bullshit. If the adventurer's hall is "optional" content and the game "can't rely on it" then what about skill-locked content. How come all of a sudden we HAVE to rely on all content being available for all players?

This is the whole problem I have with Sawyer's mentality. He's implementing 50 different things to solve a single problem and then when you look at the overall implementation you realize it's no longer a "tactical or strategeical" game, everything's been made completely "AWESOME" because all of these innovations together just fuck things up.

With everything put together and all the changes Sawyer is making, what exactly is left of the IE experience? This is starting to look more and more like IE's retarded zombie brother.

It's just shit to fix things like that anyway. So you have to make it so retards won't fail? That means the game will suck. End of line.

With all the other dumb comments that show he has no idea how an RPG works, it might take on truly epic suckage.

He 'fixed' NWN 2 OC, too. And left those encounters where you grind out 400 characters that are exactly the same. No wonder he says such stupid shit, he has a really limited MMO kind of understanding of how a game system ought to work. I don't think it will be different than DA in any way that matters at this point. Someone should ask him how much it's going to inspire PE.

 

[evdk]

This is a bit disingenuous, since the attributes in PS:T worked similarly to skills.

As they will in PE.

They'll get increased every level?

 

[Infinitron]

You heard it here first folks. Decline is alright as long as 1)it's obsidian doing it and 2) it's not as bad as it could be.

Remember what I told you: decline is always gradual. If you don't stomp it out, it'll just get worse.

You can't stomp it out. It's been decided that PE will have the Planescape Torment/Mask of the Betrayer model of NPC companions. "Party composition" is an interesting topic to discuss but ultimately a moot point. The game has to be challenging with the party members they give us. Their classes don't really matter.

This is a bit disingenuous, since the attributes in PS:T worked similarly to skills.

As they will in PE.

They'll get increased every level?

We don't know yet. We know nothing about the attributes in PE.

 

[Mangoose]

Mangoose, you have to have real differences for tactics to exist.

Moribund, please don't even try to talk on the topic of tactics.

You can't make a 'bad' party and that's supposed to be good.

Strategically, not good. Tactically, irrelevant.

 

[Moribund]

Mangoose, you have to have real differences for tactics to exist.

Moribund, please don't even try to talk on the topic of tactics.

Suck it.

Meaningful positioning isn't really possible in rtwp, so tactics can't really exist in traditional sense anyway. That's what tactics are, you don't know that, so maybe you are the one who shouldn't comment.

Positioning doesn't matter and all classes are interchangeable then it's not so much that it can't have tactics but it's a game that plays itself, a complete waste of time.

 

[Mangoose]

 

[Moribund]

 

[tuluse]

Meaningful positioning isn't really possible in rtwp.

So all my hours in Total War games, none of the unit positioning mattered at all?

 

[Mangoose]

Just to add, requiring specific classes and having obvious optimal party compositions is not strategy, but in fact promotes lack of strategic creativity, instead simply promoting a "go-down-the-checklist" style of thinking.

Strategic challenge comes from the vague middle-ground between "you must have these specific classes/roles" and "everybody can win no matter what they have."

If you can't understand the nuance there then you are just a typical sad nerd who thinks that only binary possibilities exist.

 

[Mangoose]

Meaningful positioning isn't really possible in rtwp, so tactics can't really exist in traditional sense anyway. That's what tactics are.

Hahahahahahaaa.

 

[tuluse]

Just to add, requiring specific classes and having obvious optimal party compositions is not strategy, but in fact promotes lack of strategic creativity, instead simply promoting a "go-down-the-checklist" style of thinking.

Strategic challenge comes from the vague middle-ground between "you must have these specific classes/roles" and "everybody can win no matter what they have."

If you can't understand the nuance there then you are just a typical sad nerd who thinks that only binary possibilities exist.

I think most people asking for a game where to beat the harder battles you need roles A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H. While classes will fill either 1 or 2 of those rolls. So if you need area of effect damage, you can have a wizard or sorcerer, but a fighter or rogue won't cut it.

 

[Mangoose]

Just to add, requiring specific classes and having obvious optimal party compositions is not strategy, but in fact promotes lack of strategic creativity, instead simply promoting a "go-down-the-checklist" style of thinking.

Strategic challenge comes from the vague middle-ground between "you must have these specific classes/roles" and "everybody can win no matter what they have."

If you can't understand the nuance there then you are just a typical sad nerd who thinks that only binary possibilities exist.

I think most people asking for a game where to beat the harder battles you need roles A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H. While classes will fill either 1 or 2 of those rolls. So if you need area of effect damage, you can have a wizard or sorcerer, but a fighter or rogue won't cut it.

But that's still rather simplistic in terms of strategy, and better described as logistics. Like I said a posts ago, I don't think permanent party composition at the beginning of a game really is within the domain of strategy (unless there are complex synergies between classes/characters, or the like). Strategy is not a "closed system" but rather strategy requires one to learn and predict about the mindset and the resources an opponent has. Which is why I said it could be strategically interesting if you could scout out dungeons/encounters before-hand and modify your party composition pre-encounter.

But party creation, as it is in the norm of RPGs, is just not strategically complex because you can't use your strategic skills to plan for 30 hours of a complete variety of gameplay. At best you end up with what you described, a checklist of roles, which is on the simple end of the strategic spectrum. Strategic challenge comes from thoughts that are more complex than "I need a healer" or "I need AOE damage."

I don't mean to deride party creation at the start of a game. But thinking about it, I feel it is more of a simulationist advantage than a gamist.

 

[Rake]

Just to add, requiring specific classes and having obvious optimal party compositions is not strategy, but in fact promotes lack of strategic creativity, instead simply promoting a "go-down-the-checklist" style of thinking.

Strategic challenge comes from the vague middle-ground between "you must have these specific classes/roles" and "everybody can win no matter what they have."

If you can't understand the nuance there then you are just a typical sad nerd who thinks that only binary possibilities exist.

I think most people asking for a game where to beat the harder battles you need roles A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H. While classes will fill either 1 or 2 of those rolls. So if you need area of effect damage, you can have a wizard or sorcerer, but a fighter or rogue won't cut it.

Not a single one of the IE games has that kind of battles.There is nothing wrong to ask for "tactical" and "strategic" combat, but don't pretend that if the combat is easy(by codex standards), the spirit of IE will be lost. All of the IE games were easy and most of the time no tactics were required.People ask for more chalenging encounters in P:E than IE games had and i have nothing against that, but i don't think that is Saywer's goal.Remember, they want to make this a francise and if possible to not ask for money via kickstarter again, unlike Fargo. Their target group includes Bioware fans.By that alone you should be able to take as a given that P:E will not be very punishing by design. I expect vanilla BG2 difficulty as the target goal.

 

[Moribund]

Not a single one of the IE games has that kind of battles.

But wait he just said many battles were unbeatable without a mage, especially the battles against mages. How can both these things be true?

In BG you mostly don't need to have complicated party due to kiting, but it certainly went much smoother if you did and some parties worked much better together than others. What he's basically saying is all parties and all classes should be interchangeable, and he can't even see many of those differences anyway. He thinks that thieves are just weaker fighters that have utilitarian skills and that's it. And that the massively OP clerics are just healers. Lolz, I have to wonder if he fell on his head or something, how the hell did he get this job and how does he have fans?

There is nothing wrong to ask for "tactical" and "strategic" combat, but don't pretend that if the combat is easy(by codex standards), the spirit of IE will be lost.

Well of course it will be. No one thinks BG was most tactical awesome combat game ever but it still had some interest. Shit combat = shit game. Game designers say that all the time. And this is going to be shit combat. If it's truly filler you skip past and if the whole character creation and management part doesn't matter, then there's no point to play at all. May as well play any random shooter with a story, it's no different.

All of the IE games were easy and most of the time no tactics were required.People ask for more chalenging encounters in P:E than IE games had and i have nothing against that, but i don't think that is Saywer's goal.Remember, they want to make this a francise and if possible to not ask for money via kickstarter again, unlike Fargo. Their target group includes Bioware fans.By that alone you should be able to take as a given that P:E will not be very punishing by design. I expect vanilla BG2 difficulty as the target goal.

He's already made it clear BG is way too crazy hard for his audience. His imagined audience, anyway. Bioware fans aren't going to like this game anyway. BG fans won't like it either. Next time they try a KS I doubt they will do so well, after this turd is released.

Even diablo clicker would suck if there was zero tension, holy crap it's just pathetic and insulting to people's intelligence to think this is what they want out of games. I understand giant studio of MBAs thinking gameplay should be removed from games and they should be more like movies but as someone put it this is their grimoire and they go straight for the greedy but stupid approach that's doomed to long term failure, making things as dumb as possible.

Feargus was always a greedy twat like most scots so no surprise they lead the decline the second they get their own way. Finally they can break the shackles of mediocrity and truly sell out and make a real turd. Of course it won't go over any better than DA 3 will but it will provide some laughs.

 

[Moribund]

Meaningful positioning isn't really possible in rtwp.

So all my hours in Total War games, none of the unit positioning mattered at all?

It's not a tactical game, genius, no. It's a strategic game with insanely annoying twitch features, known as an RTS.

You're welcome.

It makes me sad people like mangoose will never even know how wrong they are