Interview Project Eternity Interview @ Irontower

[ColCol]

This and the wasteland 2 two news has left me with a lot of fapabale material this week.

 

[Alex]

Well, the really sad thing about all this "Sawyerism" is that he seems to be dragging Tim Cain with him. Then again, I guess even this is better than making MMOs, so maybe it is still an improvement.

 

[Jaesun]

Personally, I believe AD&D elevated the "glass cannon" conception of wizards to an un-fun place. It's cool that, especially in 2nd Edition, wizards had so many spells to use, but in Baldur's Gate II, I believe it resulted in more-or-less strict combat puzzles rather than loose combat puzzles or tactical challenges. If the only viable way through a fight is to use a specific sequence of spells, that's not something that you tactically opt to do -- it's the thing you must do to move forward. And in many of those fights, the only way to figure out what spells to use is to trigger the fight, get wiped, reload, and try again.

That always annoyed me as well. If he can actually pull a better system off, well then fuck yeah.

 

[Wizfall]

I really like the part about dialogue and marginalizing the speech skills into the dust bin.
Speech skills and other auto success skills check in conversation have only worked on Fallout 1/2 IMHO (and i don't know why).
In other game like FNV it feels unnatural and very "mechanic".

 

[AMG]

Dialogue is a binary affair only because the developers make it so. Nothing is preventing them from implementing varying degrees of success of dialog skills usage. The problem is that would take some real effort. Why bother when you can just make BG 2.5.

 

[Infinitron]

Hmm. Thing is, if there are to be no conversation skills, then what are these "non-combat skills" that are going to get an entire point pool of their own? Utility abilities, all?

 

[DwarvenFood]

I've seen gamers who aren't interested in an RPG unless there are dwarves in it paging Dorateen

Good interview BTW.

 

[Grunker]

The stuff about experience was really derpy. Vince directly asked "why choose diplomacy over combat when you lose loot and experience" and Josh's reply was basically: "well, you're only missing out on some experience and loot."

Well thanks for proving the point Josh. I guess this is another game where you'll shy away from the diplomatic solution in order to get the most of encounters.

 

[Infinitron]

The stuff about experience was really derpy. Vince directly asked "why choose diplomacy over combat when you lose loot and experience" and Josh's reply was basically: "well, you're only missing out on some experience and loot."

Well thanks for proving the point Josh. I guess this is another game where you'll shy away from the diplomatic solution in order to get the most of encounters.

Uh, that's not what he said. In fact that's the exact opposite of what he wants to achieve. Don't you remember this? http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61...rience-points-only-for-completing-objectives/

 

[Grunker]

Players can avoid or stall combat either to gain an advantage or to stretch their resources between safe resting locations.

I.e. he sees the advantage as not spending resources.

Some players may simply not want to fight certain enemies or they might want to peacefully resolve a conflict.

"Some players might just, you know, want to." I.e. some players might want to LARP.

Tim and I would both like to use an experience system that relies heavily (if not wholly) on quest, objective (i.e. steps within a quest), and challenge (e.g. exploration rewards) rewards.

I.e. there will still be kill-rewards in addition to the quest rewards.

As far as loot goes, I don't want to rely heavily on putting all of the best gear on enemies.

I.e. yes there will be loot on enemies and no you want get it, or alternative treasure, on peaceful solutions.

This game might encourage diplomacy more than in a game where you get absolutely nothing from a peaceful solution, but it still looks very much like it will reward the fight more (all loot, all xp, nothing missed except replenishable resources).

Don't you remember this? http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61...rience-points-only-for-completing-objectives/

I do. Too back they've apparantly back-tracked.

 

[Infinitron]

Tim and I would both like to use an experience system that relies heavily (if not wholly) on quest, objective (i.e. steps within a quest), and challenge (e.g. exploration rewards) rewards.

I.e. there will still be kill-rewards in addition to the quest rewards.

"If not" doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

[Grunker]

Hey, it's an instance where I would be very happy to be wrong. Care to explain?

 

[Infinitron]

Hey, it's an instance where I would be very happy to be wrong. Care to explain?

When people use the expression "if not X", it doesn't mean that X will definitely not happen. It means it has a good chance of happening.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/if+not

 

[hiver]

Let me try to point another angle of these:

Players can avoid or stall combat either to gain an advantage or to stretch their resources between safe resting locations.

I.e. he sees the advantage as not spending resources.

First - this means you wont be able to rest everywhere, right? - great.
Second - yes, sometimes you will be able to avoid or stall combat - like isnt this how things happen usually? Imagine simply stalling an enemy with boasting or other dialogue choices* while your stealthy characters take flanking positions on the enemy, with some hand grenades ready, or your mages buffing, or sharpshooters taking positions, or barbarian climbing a hill with a nice rock on top to push onto an enemy ambush, etc. etc - Also means there will be more variability in combat encounters and solutions to it - depending on skills available. - which is good.


*styles, responses - whatever. DX:HR dialogue "battles" were good right? - edit-

Some players may simply not want to fight certain enemies or they might want to peacefully resolve a conflict.

"Some players might just, you know, want to." I.e. some players might want to LARP.

Maybe the game wont rely on having clear cut, always hostile and suicidal enemies so much?

Tim and I would both like to use an experience system that relies heavily (if not wholly) on quest, objective (i.e. steps within a quest), and challenge (e.g. exploration rewards) rewards.

I.e. there will still be kill-rewards in addition to the quest rewards.

Is that bad? Am i supposed to not get any experience if i found another solution to a problem?
And whats then wrong with fighters getting rewards from combat and some specific kills? Thats what fighters do.

As far as loot goes, I don't want to rely heavily on putting all of the best gear on enemies.

I.e. yes there will be loot on enemies and no you want get it, or alternative treasure, on peaceful solutions.[/QUOTE]
No, he said that there will be ways of getting good loot besides strictly combat. Like... only important enemies will have good gear, which shouldn't mean there isnt any anywhere else in the world. - of course, you cant remove rewards from one style of gameplay completely.
What kind of half assed design that would be?

This game might encourage diplomacy more than in a game where you get absolutely nothing from a peaceful solution, but it still looks very much like it will reward the fight more (all loot, all xp, nothing missed except replenishable resources).

hmmm...? he said he wont putt

all of the best gear on enemies.

... and he said...

Tim and I would both like to use an experience system that relies heavily (if not wholly) on quest, objective (i.e. steps within a quest), and challenge (e.g. exploration rewards) rewards.

...

So...? No coffee this morning? Hows the weather there? Low pressure?

 

[Haba]

There is only one reason you'd choose not to kill anyone and everything - larping.

Fucking larpers, man.

 

[hiver]

 

[Grunker]

Is that bad? Am i supposed to not get any experience if i found another solution to a problem?
And whats then wrong with fighters getting rewards from combat and some specific kills? Thats what fighters do.

Why would I take the diplomatic solution if combat yields me the same experience PLUS experience for kills?

No, he said that there will be ways of getting good loot besides strictly combat.

In other words, if I use diplomacy, I get the loot from the chests, if I don't, I get loot from chests AND dead bodies.

Where is it that I'm not expressing myself clearly? I'm not saying not rewarding combat is good, I'm saying that rewarding combat more than the diplomatic solution will of course make me pick combat.

Example:

Combat = Get experience from kills. Gain loot from bodies.

Diplomatic solution = get bonus experience equal to the amount you would have gained by killing. Gain some sort of alternative loot but gain no loot from bodies.

 

[Grunker]

Hey, it's an instance where I would be very happy to be wrong. Care to explain?

When people use the expression "if not X", it doesn't mean that X will definitely not happen. It means it has a good chance of happening.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/if not

So what you're saying is that they WILL only give out quest XP? I seriously doubt it, but I would welcome it. You're also assuming that Sawyer didn't make the same "mistake" I did. To me it seems superflous to put "if not" in that sentence if what he meant was: "This game only rewards experience for quests and accomplishments outside of combat."

 

[Infinitron]

Hey, it's an instance where I would be very happy to be wrong. Care to explain?

When people use the expression "if not X", it doesn't mean that X will definitely not happen. It means it has a good chance of happening.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/if not

So what you're saying is that they WILL only give out quest XP? I seriously doubt it, but I would welcome it.

I don't if they definitely will (Feargus might veto it to placate the idiots in that thread I linked to), but it's what they want to do.

 

[Kane]

5. Stamina, health, and regeneration. A lot has been speculated on the topic, so would you mind clarifying it? What are the advantages of a "dual-bar" system? What does it do that a single-bar system can't? What role does stamina regeneration play?

The "dual-bar" or two resource system allows the player to have separate tactical and strategic resources for their characters' survivability in combat. In most versions of A/D&D, you have hit points that determine how much damage a character can take before he or she can no longer perform actions in combat. If you're playing in a more forgiving edition, you also have "Death's Door" rules that allow the character to dip into negative hit point values without being killed outright.

Many A/D&D adventures have an expectation of periodic healing, so if your party members have a rough fight, the party cleric, druid, or maybe paladin has to spend resources to make you viable for the next fight. This leads to the "healing battery" expectation, where someone in the party has to devote strategic resources to healing between fights -- or you're stuck walking back to a resting location with high frequency. Neither of those options are particularly enjoyable for many players.

With Stamina and Health, Stamina represents short term damage (shock, impact trauma, initial pain) and Health represents "the bad stuff" (burns, cuts, bruised ribs, etc.). When you take damage, you lose Stamina, but you also lose Health at a fixed ratio to the amount of Stamina damage you took. Currently it's at 1:4 Health:Stamina. When you run out of Stamina, your character gets knocked out, just like hitting 0 hit points in most editions of A/D&D. You're effectively out of the fight and you're not going to get back up without outside assistance.

If you're conscious, Stamina will regenerate quickly. "How quickly, Josh?" I don't know, man, but... pretty fast. It's the thing you're most likely to run out of in combat, but you'll probably get most or all of it back before you start another fight. You can also recover Stamina through the use of spells or class abilities, so it's something you can choose to tactically manage in combat. Between fights, it's really not an issue. No one has to cast ten healing spells in a row to get characters back into fighting shape because the Stamina will return in short order.

Health damage doesn't regenerate and you can't get it back with magic. You have to rest to recover Health. If your Health hits zero, you'll either enter some form of maimed/critically injured (and unconscious) state or, optionally (and all the time in Expert mode), be killed outright. If you explore far away from rest locations and keep getting your faces pounded in, you can have characters with very low Health and high Stamina. That's a dangerous circumstance to be in because even one or two blows could lead to a character being maimed or killed.

Ultimately, the mechanics are present to allow "hit points" and unconsciousness to be a real threat in individual combats without necessitating the presence of a healer or resting to allow for more exploration.

P:E has health regen. I really wonder what pushes the developers buttons, that they think health regen is a god-like feature that simply has to be in ALL THE GAMES? All of the implementations of health-regen I have seen so far are bad for gameplay, wich leads me to the assumption that health-regen has a whole is shit.
So, what is the magic that drives developers towards health-regen, despite large falldoors with spears opening below them? Ease of implementation?

Edit: The concept of "half"-regeneration presented by Josh has been taken from Planetside 1 (at least that the first game where I saw that).

 

[Infinitron]

5. Stamina, health, and regeneration. A lot has been speculated on the topic, so would you mind clarifying it? What are the advantages of a "dual-bar" system? What does it do that a single-bar system can't? What role does stamina regeneration play?

The "dual-bar" or two resource system allows the player to have separate tactical and strategic resources for their characters' survivability in combat. In most versions of A/D&D, you have hit points that determine how much damage a character can take before he or she can no longer perform actions in combat. If you're playing in a more forgiving edition, you also have "Death's Door" rules that allow the character to dip into negative hit point values without being killed outright.

Many A/D&D adventures have an expectation of periodic healing, so if your party members have a rough fight, the party cleric, druid, or maybe paladin has to spend resources to make you viable for the next fight. This leads to the "healing battery" expectation, where someone in the party has to devote strategic resources to healing between fights -- or you're stuck walking back to a resting location with high frequency. Neither of those options are particularly enjoyable for many players.

With Stamina and Health, Stamina represents short term damage (shock, impact trauma, initial pain) and Health represents "the bad stuff" (burns, cuts, bruised ribs, etc.). When you take damage, you lose Stamina, but you also lose Health at a fixed ratio to the amount of Stamina damage you took. Currently it's at 1:4 Health:Stamina. When you run out of Stamina, your character gets knocked out, just like hitting 0 hit points in most editions of A/D&D. You're effectively out of the fight and you're not going to get back up without outside assistance.

If you're conscious, Stamina will regenerate quickly. "How quickly, Josh?" I don't know, man, but... pretty fast. It's the thing you're most likely to run out of in combat, but you'll probably get most or all of it back before you start another fight. You can also recover Stamina through the use of spells or class abilities, so it's something you can choose to tactically manage in combat. Between fights, it's really not an issue. No one has to cast ten healing spells in a row to get characters back into fighting shape because the Stamina will return in short order.

Health damage doesn't regenerate and you can't get it back with magic. You have to rest to recover Health. If your Health hits zero, you'll either enter some form of maimed/critically injured (and unconscious) state or, optionally (and all the time in Expert mode), be killed outright. If you explore far away from rest locations and keep getting your faces pounded in, you can have characters with very low Health and high Stamina. That's a dangerous circumstance to be in because even one or two blows could lead to a character being maimed or killed.

Ultimately, the mechanics are present to allow "hit points" and unconsciousness to be a real threat in individual combats without necessitating the presence of a healer or resting to allow for more exploration.

P:E has health regen. I really wonder what pushes the developers buttons, that they think health regen is a god-like feature that simply has to be in ALL THE GAMES? All of the implementations of health-regen I have seen so far are bad for gameplay, wich leads me to the assumption that health-regen has a whole is shit.
So, what is the magic that drives developers towards health-regen, despite large falldoors with spears opening below them? Ease of implementation?

In this case, Sawyer's desire to prevent "degenerate" rest-spamming, which sadly is how many people played the Infinity Engine games.

 

[Grunker]

So, what is the magic that drives developers towards health-regen

The system of rest-between-each-encounter wasn't perfect. Therefore, they saw fit to implement a much worse solution

Honestly though, the system in P:E from this perspective looks quite alright. It enables them to disable resting almost anywhere except very safe places, without you having to constantly backtrack. Though I like Chaos Chronicles' solution here, I think P:E seems to offer a decent compromise.

 

[Kane]

In this case, Sawyer's desire to prevent "degenerate" rest-spamming, which sadly is how many people played the Infinity Engine games.

It's called managing your ressources. Obviously, I will restspam if I can do so.

I think it is obvious at this point that Josh is driving combat in P:E into a more frantic and actiony direction - think controlling units in RTS.

 

[Infinitron]

In this case, Sawyer's desire to prevent "degenerate" rest-spamming, which sadly is how many people played the Infinity Engine games.

It's called managing your ressources. Obviously, I will restspam if I can do so.

Yes. So what happens is that retarded players will prefer to backtrack to rest areas, again and again, if you forbid them from resting where they are. So the only way to enforce the hardcore experience is to actually physically lock the player in a no-rest-allowed area, which would be controversial to say the least.

This is why I call Josh Sawyer's approach "gamist" - he favors manipulating the game's design to accommodate the ways in which players actually play these types of games in practice, as opposed to creating a more "idealistic" system and then hoping that people play it in the correct, non-cheesy way.

I think it is obvious at this point that Josh is driving combat in P:E into a more frantic and actiony direction - think controlling units in RTS.

RTSes are frantic and actiony?

 

[GordonHalfman]

Personally, I believe AD&D elevated the "glass cannon" conception of wizards to an un-fun place. It's cool that, especially in 2nd Edition, wizards had so many spells to use, but in Baldur's Gate II, I believe it resulted in more-or-less strict combat puzzles rather than loose combat puzzles or tactical challenges. If the only viable way through a fight is to use a specific sequence of spells, that's not something that you tactically opt to do -- it's the thing you must do to move forward. And in many of those fights, the only way to figure out what spells to use is to trigger the fight, get wiped, reload, and try again.

I don't understand Sawyer on this issue. The "combat puzzle" aspect of BG2 where you try an opening spell sequence, fail, and then try again with a different one was awesome. Why is this bad again? It would start to be a problem if the game spams the same encounter at you again and again but BG2 didn't do that.

The "loose tactical challenge" just sounds like boring Dragon Age MMO style micromanagement. He's also overstating the case against BG2, it's one of the most replayed games ever mainly because of all the different ways to win.