Development Info Josh Sawyer on Utility and Balance in Game Design

[Delterius]

I don't remember there being any good reason in Fallout to go past 100% in any skill, but the Master-level skills in Arcanum unlocked special content: the master-level quests. That was a worthwhile investment in a skill (instead of becoming a jack of all trades) to train to become a master in a skill. And the content was fun (master-level quests were usually interesting).

But in a party of six, what would be the point of spreading thin? Will there even be enough non-combat skills that the party can't cover when each of its members is a master-specialist?

I stand by your earlier point, Sawyer should pick one balance method and stick with it.

 

[Roguey]

Alpha Protocol used "different skills have different values" and people still messed up their builds.

 

[Hormalakh]

I don't remember there being any good reason in Fallout to go past 100% in any skill, but the Master-level skills in Arcanum unlocked special content: the master-level quests. That was a worthwhile investment in a skill (instead of becoming a jack of all trades) to train to become a master in a skill. And the content was fun (master-level quests were usually interesting).

But in a party of six, what would be the point of spreading thin? Will there even be enough non-combat skills that the party can't cover when each of its members is a master-specialist?

I stand by your earlier point, Sawyer should pick one balance method and stick with it.

your point is well taken and brings us, i think, to the crux of the issue. if there aren't enough skills to choose from for each class and a party can have all the skills it needs, then there seems to be no reason to allow us to even choose skills. just let "skills" go up for the party as you level up. a false choice is no choice.

 

[St. Toxic]

your point is well taken and brings us, i think, to the crux of the issue. if there aren't enough skills to choose from for each class and a party can have all the skills it needs, then there seems to be no reason to allow us to even choose skills. just let "skills" go up for the party as you level up. a false choice is no choice.

Sounds good to me. Or stick to one pool and make it necessary to invest 1-2 of your party members entirely into non-combat abilities to really access the 'optional' content outside of encounters. Balance 'standard' difficulty for 5 combat-only characters = a party of 3-4 combat only characters will have a tougher time unless they fully utilize the extra experience income from non-combat quests.

Thus, if someone wants to get all of the non-combat bases covered for the side-fluff, they'll have to struggle with the combat. If someone wants to go combat-only route, they'll do well in combat initially but end up behind on experience/unique items.

EDIT: Now, to the untrained eye it might look like a non-combat specialist would end up just standing off to the side in a combat encounter and doing nothing, which apparently would be so horrible that we're given no choice but to force combat skills down everybody's throat, but whatever happened to item support? If combat is just combat, and exp and geld is generally going to be a produce of activities outside of that field, then a party with more of a non-combat composition is inevitably going to have a better economy. A better economy equals more items that can be helpful regardless of specialization and skill; flat-out stamina recovery/status ailment cure items, damage items (nades could be good, or its alchemical equivalent if it makes more sense), debuffs (smoke-bombs, poison gas, sticky shit) and buffs (I'm thinking semi-magical reliquary here). I mean, it sucks to have to deal with rtwp, as this would be a lot more fluent and less micro-managay in tb, but there's still the p.

And, to restate the point above, any extra resources not spent on equipping non-combat characters would go towards giving the combat character a greater edge than they would otherwise have had. That said, it would still be pretty interesting trying to beat the entire game with a peaceful posse.

 

[hiver]

Isnt this that game where exp wont be given for kills but for completing quests?


combat...

JS: It is quite likely that you will have to talk to lost souls, decipher odd dialects, and get help with translating forgotten languages in Project: Eternity. One of the seldom-heard dialects in Dyrwood is Hylspeak, an archaic variant of the "common" Aedyran language. People often associate it with remembering a past life, so superstitious people often have a bad reaction to hearing it.

oh yeah.

 

[Delterius]

your point is well taken and brings us, i think, to the crux of the issue. if there aren't enough skills to choose from for each class and a party can have all the skills it needs, then there seems to be no reason to allow us to even choose skills. just let "skills" go up for the party as you level up. a false choice is no choice.

Agreed, if you can choose everything, then that choice loses meaning and becomes no more than fluff, customization and so on.

While its true that, ideally, most everything is a 'true', far-reaching choice (especially when it comes to your character's traits) I, however, only think that customization and fluff is bad if it acts as a substitute for solid C&C. Like when TES lets you be a master fighter/mage/thief/shaman/cleric/nerevarine/dragonborn/archmage/assassin/blacksmith/enchanter/alchemist/engineer/filologist/pediatrician/husband and father; or when Dragon Age gives you two tough choices and a third that is, essentially, the perfect decision without any consequence.

And given that (presumably) the skill system is secondary to the class system (Infinitron's I told you so?), and assuming the class system has impacts on the story of its own, then choosing wether its the mage or the cleric that is your local ancient language expert is a nice extra layer of detail.

Again, that's a lot of assumptions.

EDIT: Now, to the untrained eye it might look like a non-combat specialist would end up just standing off to the side in a combat encounter and doing nothing, which apparently would be so horrible that we're given no choice but to force combat skills down everybody's throat, but whatever happened to item support? If combat is just combat, and exp and geld is generally going to be a produce of activities outside of that field, then a party with more of a non-combat composition is inevitably going to have a better economy. A better economy equals more items that can be helpful regardless of specialization and skill; flat-out stamina recovery/status ailment cure items, damage items (nades could be good, or its alchemical equivalent if it makes more sense), debuffs (smoke-bombs, poison gas, sticky shit) and buffs (I'm thinking semi-magical reliquary here). I mean, it sucks to have to deal with rtwp, as this would be a lot more fluent and less micro-managay in tb, but there's still the p.

And, to restate the point above, any extra resources not spent on equipping non-combat characters would go towards giving the combat character a greater edge than they would otherwise have had. That said, it would still be pretty interesting trying to beat the entire game with a peaceful posse.

Well, to the best of my knowledge the developers only stated that they want to equally balance experience (as in, pure character development), as opposed to everything from gold to items acquired. Even though there are a lot of things to consider, the economies may turn more or less similar, given that less combat probably means less looting.

 

[Captain Shrek]

And given that (presumably) the skill system is secondary to the class system (Infinitron's I told you so?), and assuming the class system has impacts on the story of its own, then choosing wether its the mage or the cleric that is your local ancient language expert is a nice extra layer of detail.

Is that an opinion or a fact of PE?

 

[Delterius]

And given that (presumably) the skill system is secondary to the class system (Infinitron's I told you so?), and assuming the class system has impacts on the story of its own, then choosing wether its the mage or the cleric that is your local ancient language expert is a nice extra layer of detail.

Is that an opinion or a fact of PE?

Well, the entire post is basically a blind opinion based on a series of assumptions. First the skill system must be limited (in variety) and/or unlimited (to what extent each character may delve into non-combat skills) for you to effectively have every option avaiable from the start; and next what you posted.

Mind you, given the inspiration inspiration for PE (IE games), the latter seems the lesser of two evils for me. Nonetheless, its a good question for Sawyer's formspring.

 

[Hormalakh]

Isnt this that game where exp wont be given for kills but for completing quests?


combat...

JS: It is quite likely that you will have to talk to lost souls, decipher odd dialects, and get help with translating forgotten languages in Project: Eternity. One of the seldom-heard dialects in Dyrwood is Hylspeak, an archaic variant of the "common" Aedyran language. People often associate it with remembering a past life, so superstitious people often have a bad reaction to hearing it.

oh yeah.

Just because you don't get generic experience for killing generic enemies doesn't make combat a joke. There will likely be experience given for accomplishing quests which require killing/combat. I actually like the fact that he isn't giving just random experience for every golbin joe-schmoe that you kill. It makes experience that much more valuable and killing less forced.

Everyone has their opinion on this piece and I like what Josh is doing with it. Like it or leave it.

 

[hiver]

Like it or leave it?
Are you... talking to me? o_O
... i said that a combat is a joke?
Did I FUCKING SAY that quests that require killing WILL NOT GIVE EXPERIENCE?


Look... just fuck off.
I dont need yet another idiot who cannot understand simple sentences and goes on to invent "what it really means" and then answers his own imbecilic interpretations.

 

[Hormalakh]

Look don't get your mascara smudged all over the place, princess. you said

Isnt this that game where exp wont be given for kills but for completing quests?


combat...

That seemed like you were hating on the no exp for killing mooks. I'm sorry you're having a heart-attack about this, but I think he's doing the right thing. If you don't have anything worthwhile to say about it, then just don't. As for "simple sentences" perhaps you should be more clear about what you're talking about instead of filling your posts with inane smileys that don't clarify what you're saying. Make a point or just don't say anything.

 

[hiver]

Im not having any heart attack retard. And what "seemed" to you is as stupid as what "seems" to you now, in this reply.

You have just done it again, despite me explaining how stupid it was.
i.e. youre a dumbfucking internet imbecile.

 

[St. Toxic]

A lot of bricks being carried itt.

 

[SCO]

Good about the no-xp for combat.

The only thing that worries me about that is that they'll feel they have to 'linear it up'. Bloodlines had a linear main quest sequence, that i suppose was adequate for getting enough xp to scrape by especially considering the no combat options and how easy it was to drain for HP, but i sure don't like to be *forced* into quests.

Oh yeah. I'm not going to play this anyway. Filthy RtwP.

 

[hiver]

The horrors of RtWp combat notwithstanding, at least this clearly points that the game will not be an action RPG.
Also, that you wont be able to grind combat to increase XP or levels.

 

[DraQ]

And I'm saying that the way it was done in Fallout and Arcanum is better than what Sawyer is proposing here. The player should be allowed to make, if not even tricked into making, wrong choices so that the choices he makes have meaning and long term consequences.

Actually no.

When it comes to chargen, player can be assumed to be perfectly ignorant of everything about the game, but what he actually sees in chargen (or have read in the manual).

If some skills are shitty or some permitted builds broken (unless they are very commonsensically so, but then why are they allowed in the first place? All they do is clutter the fucking precious combinatorial space that could be taken up by valid ones) in your game, then *you*, not the player, have failed.

Yes, there should be challenge involved in builds but it should be more about finding the way in which given build can work, rather than finding a build that works.

I like how Sawyer concentrates on balance of utility rather than balance of power, BTW.

No, the game shouldn't provide valid solutions for all player choices. The player should be thought ( by carrot or, if necessarily, stick ) that making choices is serious business and, if he fucks up, he'll suffer.

Yes, and it's one thing I don't agree with in the video, but that only applies to choices made during gameplay - informed choices, where player is presented with an opportunity to gather necessary information to make their decision.
Choices made during chargen are necessarily uninformed.

Just take his latest waffling about how challenging combat encounters must have a "variety" of solutions (and the inept and inaccurate comparisons to chess). Let me tell you something: if there IS an ACTUAL problem, odds are the number of solutions is very small.
If you have a variety of ways to win an encounter, odds are there is no problem.

Relatively. If there is great variety of possible solutions, even if tiny percentage of them actually works you still have a shitload of working solutions without compromising difficulty of the problem.

 

[EG]

When it comes to chargen, player can be assumed to be perfectly ignorant of everything about the game, but what he actually sees in chargen (or have read in the manual).

Is the assumption then that the player will never have more than one playthrough?

 

[EG]

Is the assumption then that the player will never have more than one playthrough?

Oh no. Much worse.

It is under the implicit assumption (implicit since I do not believe anyone supporting it is aware of of its implications) that the game is made by dumb people for dumb people with Attention deficit disorder.

Why would anyone on this site advocate such heresy?

 

[tuluse]

I don't understand why meta commentary is considered bad in games.

Why can't there be a tip in Fallout that tells you it's a bad idea to tag outdoorsman or gambling on your first playthrough? Or one that says Fallout is a violent world, you should probably tag at least one combat skill?

 

[Lancehead]

Probably because developers actually try to support all the skills properly. Saying Outdoorsman is useless is just saying they've failed in designing that skill.

 

[tuluse]

Ok, but they did fail at designing outdoorsman. Might as well let the player know right?

 

[Lancehead]

I don't see the use. It just saves players some time during which they figure out which skills are useless, but the useless skill remains useless, which is the actual problem. Besides, you're asking developers to admit to failures before they even ship the product; not sure many would like to do that.

As for saying "it's a good idea to learn a combat skill", sure, but this can be easily conveyed within the game - just design a good starting area which showcases the major workings of the game.

Meta commentary is only "bad" insofar as the message can be conveyed through the game language.

 

[Moribund]

But outdoorsman is not broken, neither is doctor.

I'm playing an RPG and I point all my character's stuffies in doctor and outdoorsman, whoops he died?! Then you think about it and restart the game, figuring out what the game is about is part of the fun. If you don't like that then RPGs aren't for you. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

 

[EG]

But outdoorsman is not broken, neither is doctor.

They just don't offer much benefit, comparatively to Small Guns, Speech, or Lockpick on a per-point basis. Outdoorsman further lacks any in-dialog options or the ability to be applied to in-game objects and characters. It's certainly the weaker of the skills, up there with gambling and trading.

This discussion seems to be entirely about balancing things out, though. If Outdoorsman isn't as awesome and used as often as Lockpicking is, nor offers similar gains as Lockpicking, it fucking sucks, should be removed, and the designer shot. Wahhh. o_O

 

[DraQ]

Is the assumption then that the player will never have more than one playthrough?

No, the assumption is that one of those playthroughs will be the first and subsequent ones may or may not occur.

You should balance the game for this first playthrough, although anything that makes subsequent playthroughs 'new' and not significantly less challenging as well as making game more difficult to cluelessly wiki your way through it is a welcome addition.

Oh no. Much worse.

It is under the implicit assumption (implicit since I do not believe anyone supporting it is aware of of its implications) that the game is made by dumb people for dumb people with Attention deficit disorder.

Ok, so I play Fallout for the first time. It's post apoc game inspired by Mad Max. It implies scarcity of resources and strong survival themes, so it seems natural to tag melee as my combat skill (not much ammo to go around), outdorsman (survival, man, you will be walking around scorched, radioactive, post-nuclear wasteland a lot, would be downright stupid to not tag it) and some medical skills (likewise, it's not like there are going to be healing potions or equivalent just lying around in great quantities in harsh, post nuclear environment, right?).

Oops.


Or maybe I play Fallout for the first time and I see it's a retrofuturistic sci-fi game (albeit a post-apoc one), which is reinforced by comics in the loading screens. Naturally I pick rayguns as my primary offensive skill.

Oops.

Attention deficit disorder supposedly means lack of prophetic skills.

If you have swords, bows and staff skills and the retards put precious points in all three then probably something is wrong with their understanding (example).

No, it means something is wrong with your design, because you put in three skills without making them different and circumstantially useful enough to make the versatility of having all three worth the tradeoff in power, making them effectively redundant.

Shit example from a shit poster - how quaint.

If a build is possible it should be viable and potentially fun to play. Now, finding this viability can and should require a lot of sweat, blood and sweet, sweet ragetears.