Author Topic: This game looks great! My thoughts...

EHamilton

  • Member
  • Beach Crab
  • 1
  • Joined
    Jan 08, 2018
    Posts
    1
#275 June 23, 2018, Saturday, 02:41 am
I just saw the combat demo video for this game, and I think it is very promising. I'm an old-school CRPG fan from back in Commodore 64 days, and I love the way the engine reminds me of some of the old Gold Box and Dark Sun games. I've been disappointed by most recent games in the genre, and I'm always keeping an eye out for something that will live up to the (nostalgia softened!) memories of those classics.

Some of the recent games I've appreciated the most are Troika's ToEE (which sadly failed to have any sequels), NWN2's expansion Storms of Zehir, the indie project Knights of the Chalice, Expeditions: Conquistador, and the recent strategy-rpg hybrid Battle Brothers. None of them have quite been exactly what I wanted, but each of them captured some important pieces of my perfect turn-based RPG.

I figured I'd toss out the things that I think made Pool of Radiance my favorite all-time game, along with a few problems that it had that could be fixed. I'm pretty sure you're doing some of these right already, from what I can tell in the demo.

1. The ability to play through death.

I HATE save-scumming, or reloading after a character dies. It makes computer RPGs feel "fake" compared to real table-top play. But I also hate games where death doesn't seem to exist at all, and characters just pop back to life after being stomped flat by a dozen trolls. I want to play something that feels more like a rogue-like game on ironman mode, where death is real and permanent (or fixable only with high-level spells). It puts constant tension during each battle. Note: This doesn't mean I want the game to be brutally hard! Death should be rare, but feel like a serious problem when it does occur. Just like real life.

2. A quality camping system.

Pool of Radiance didn't provide a huge range of options during camping, but the time pressure of having to memorize spells is something I've never forgotten. Should I rest just long enough to memorize a few low-level heals? Or longer, to try to get back my really great wizard AoEs? The feeling of watching the camping clock whirr past was a source of dramatic tension. I still recall the "Oh, no!" feeling when a weakened party was jumped by an otherwise wimpy random encounter. Revenge of the kobolds! Resting should be a high-risk activity, away from the shelter of civilization and the comfort of a room at an inn.

3. BIG fights.

I love the old-school feeling of walking into a lair stuffed full of weak opponents just begging for a fireball. Pool of Radiance served up plenty of these types of encounters, and there was something deeply satisfying about seeing a fifth-level party carve through a wall of the same goblins that bedeviled at at level 1. It gave the game a real sense of progression. You weren't just fighting the same fights as before, with slightly tougher reskinned enemies that had rescaled to your level. You were fighting entire armies, with a new required set of tactics to deal with the sheer volume of targets.

4. Lots of NPC options to swap around.

OK, back then most of the hired henchman were generic "fighter" types that you hired from the training hall for a few fights before they died horribly. But the idea of a game with lots of semi-disposable NPCs made the game world feel gritty and dangerous. Today, every game has a half-dozen recruitable NPCs that have full story lines and extensive recorded voice acting. That means that if one of them dies, there aren't as many options around for replacements. And that gets back to the "constant reloads vs no real death" problem. I also like the feeling that the "new guys" that you hire to replace the hero who just died horribly are weaker, and need to be trained up a bit.

It looks like RB is going to have six total party slots, so I'd probably want to play with four original characters and then swap around between hiring different NPCs for the last two -- if that's possible. But hopefully the game goes for quantity over depth, so that death can be a semi-routine occurrence and make every fight a nail-biter. That's an unpopular design decision in modern games, but it's one of the things I really liked about (for example) Battle Brothers.

Oh yeah, and if you could make a "graveyard" or a hall-of-fame list that records the names and accomplishments of my poor departed party members, that would be awesome.

5. A morale system.

This is probably a long-shot, but I love the idea that monsters sometimes decide to flee or surrender in the middle of a fight when it isn't going their way. It feels realistic, given that most monstrous creatures are cowards. Scattering a host of minions is also a great "reward" for sniping a boss from range. There's something deeply satisfying about seeing your fighters whittled down the single-digits, and then seeing the monsters suddenly make a run for the edge of the map. "That's right, you miserable bastards,  you'd better run!" As a bonus, it makes some of the really huge fights less tedious, by finishing them quickly when it's obvious that you've already won.

6. Rare magic items.

In the post-Diablo world, there are lots of games where magic items literally drop by twos and threes. Magic shops are everywhere! Constantly upgrading items takes one of the best rewards in the game and turns it into busy-work. On the other hand, the items that exist should be high-quality and impressive. I love finding an item that's so good that I'll use it for half the game. This helps to make your party members feel more unique. "This is the fighter with the flametongue sword" while the other guy is still using something mundane, or  "This is the fighter with the magic shield and plate+3" while the rest of your party has middling armor class. I like the feeling of there being not enough "good stuff" to go around... except maybe at the very end of the game.

7. Encumbrance limits and penalties.

I always liked the challenge of trying to tote out a huge treasure hoard of bulky silver pieces that would slow your party to a crawl. It meant periodically fighting random encounters while reduced to a snail's pace, another source of tactical variety.

8. Nonlinear overland maps.

I love exploring a huge overland map that lets me take a few risks. The "dangerous areas" should be marked, but it should be possible to allow players to wander into those dangerous areas to find a better challenge. Pool of Radiance was a little too brutal in that department ("My third level party just encountered four wyverns!") but I'd rather err on the side of having a wilderness that feels legitimately dangerous, rather thane one where all the content is carefully gated and quarantined by level. That feels artificial and unrealistic.

9. Random procedural lairs.

Hard to do with modern pre-drawn graphics, but I loved stumbling on an underground lair maze in the wilderness and knowing I had "one shot" to clear it out, since I'd never find it again.


Now, for a few of the deficiencies of old-school SSI games:

1. Broken economy.

Pool of Radiance followed AD&D treasure tables strictly, which meant that there was tons of money floating around. But there was really nothing to spend it on. I'm not big on crafting systems for weapons and items (which tend to take away from the joy of finding rare loot), and I have similar reservations about magic items shops. But I like having crafting or purchase systems for consumables like scrolls and potions and ammunition, since that makes it feel less "wasteful" to use them in combat. In games where consumables aren't craftable, I tend to just collect them without ever quite feeling like a fight is "important enough" to warrant using them up! I bet this is a common situation for other players, too. Consumables (good ones) should be a money sink for the game.

2. Not enough clues and hints to prepare for hard fights.

Scouting and using information skills and spells should be a big part of RPGs. In classic tabletop systems like 80s-era D&D, getting information about enemies is a huge part of play. This allows for meaningful choices about when to engage enemies, and when to avoid them and come back later. Tracking skills, items like rings/helms of ESP, or all those cleric "detect" spells, should be a bigger part of the game. Plus, it feels more dramatic when you get a steady stream of hints of the big fight that's coming up. I like a game that makes unfair fights possible, but you should know in advance if your first-level party is about to walk into a room full of trolls and ogres throwing flour sacks. (Oh boy, was that fight ever rough...) It should also be possible to research the strengths, resistances, and weakness of major recurring enemies, using things like tavern rumors, powerful divination spells, the services of sages, and so forth.

Most modern games do this poorly, expecting you to fight it once for practice, and then reload and do it right. I HATE that! Very immersion-breaking.

3. Limited transportation options.

The actual AD&D players handbook is full of useful mounts and draft animals and carts and boats. Having a more detailed transportation system is part of making wilderness travel feel realistic. Your party should be able to invest in horses to ride, and wagons to haul back all that loot that would otherwise be slowing you to a crawl. And I'd love to see a full implementation of mounted combat with lances, or naval combat with ballistas. Yeah, I know this is a major investment of programming and design work, but a man can dream, eh? Bonus: This is another good money sink.

4. The ability to hire mercenary troops.

If the monsters can have a horde of two-dozen kobolds at their lair, my overland wilderness expedition should be able to hire two-dozen computer-controlled archers to provide security against those awful wyvern attacks. It's in the 1st edition dungeon master's guide, and it would create another option for even more diverse combat (a few powerful monsters, against your party and a host of friendly NPCs!) Oh, and then you can have player character skills to keep those mercenaries from failing THEIR morale checks.


OK, I suppose I've just listed a bunch of stuff that's already in the game, plus a bunch of other stuff that's totally unrealistic under the current budget. But hopefully the amount of time I've spent typing all this out is evidence of my enthusiasm, if nothing else.

HobGoblin42

  • Administrator
  • Wildland Warrior
  • 5
  • Joined
    Aug 03, 2016
    Posts
    318
    Location
    Munich
#276 June 24, 2018, Sunday, 07:55 pm
Hey there,  welcome to our forums.
That's really a long and comprehensive post with many helpful ideas. Thanks for that!  :salute:

Right now, I can answer only to some of the mentioned issues since some topics are still in discussion here.

1. The ability to play through death.
I HATE save-scumming, or reloading after a character dies. It makes computer RPGs feel "fake" compared to real table-top play. But I also hate games where death doesn't seem to exist at all, and characters just pop back to life after being stomped flat by a dozen trolls.

Save scumming/quick loading has definitely a negative impact on how the player takes decisions serious and if challenges cause adrenaline or not.
We'll design the game in a way, that surviving a tough battle with just one survivor should be a successful strategy (means resurrecting is possible). Also, sometimes it could make sense to replace dead characters with newbies from the next inn/guild.
But the truth is that a lot of players simply don't accept a permanent character loss and therefore we will add (costly) options to resurrect your beloved party members.

2. A quality camping system.

Pool of Radiance didn't provide a huge range of options during camping, but the time pressure of having to memorize spells is something I've never forgotten. Should I rest just long enough to memorize a few low-level heals? Or longer, to try to get back my really great wizard AoEs? The feeling of watching the camping clock whirr past was a source of dramatic tension.

Our resting/camping mechanism will be quite sophisticated.
Beside a lot of different equipment items such as sleeping bags, dishes, herbs, fishing rods, the player needs to manage the guards and different tasks of his character when resting. Some actions in the encampment, like making a campfire, have positive effects but also possible negative side effect such attracting encounters.
The location of the camp is also crucial; Resting in swamps for example can lead to various diseases and resting in snowy mountains may cause severe cold if your characters don't have proper clothing and some fire during that time.

3. BIG fights.

I love the old-school feeling of walking into a lair stuffed full of weak opponents just begging for a fireball. Pool of Radiance served up plenty of these types of encounters, and there was something deeply satisfying about seeing a fifth-level party carve through a wall of the same goblins that bedeviled at at level 1. It gave the game a real sense of progression. You weren't just fighting the same fights as before, with slightly tougher reskinned enemies that had rescaled to your level. You were fighting entire armies, with a new required set of tactics to deal with the sheer volume of targets.
We'll try to have a good mixture of unique battles with only a few, but strong participants and mass battles where area damage becomes crucial to survive. Our AI system is able to use every spell and action the player can use, therefore expect a variety of opponents.

7. Encumbrance limits and penalties.

I always liked the challenge of trying to tote out a huge treasure hoard of bulky silver pieces that would slow your party to a crawl. It meant periodically fighting random encounters while reduced to a snail's pace, another source of tactical variety.
Yes, encumbrance is part of the game and every coin of copper comes with its own weight. Looting the treasure of the Goblin King with 50,000 pieces of copper could be a serious logistical problem.

8. Nonlinear overland maps.

I love exploring a huge overland map that lets me take a few risks. The "dangerous areas" should be marked, but it should be possible to allow players to wander into those dangerous areas to find a better challenge. Pool of Radiance was a little too brutal in that department ("My third level party just encountered four wyverns!") but I'd rather err on the side of having a wilderness that feels legitimately dangerous, rather thane one where all the content is carefully gated and quarantined by level. That feels artificial and unrealistic.
You will be free to travel wherever you want (even with ships) but some journeys may end as tragedy if you face monsters above your own level (there will be no scaling).



JarlFrank

  • Member
  • Marsh Goblin
  • 2
  • Joined
    Apr 08, 2017
    Posts
    14
#278 June 24, 2018, Sunday, 09:19 pm
To add some things to what HobGoblin said above:

1. The ability to play through death.

I HATE save-scumming, or reloading after a character dies. It makes computer RPGs feel "fake" compared to real table-top play. But I also hate games where death doesn't seem to exist at all, and characters just pop back to life after being stomped flat by a dozen trolls. I want to play something that feels more like a rogue-like game on ironman mode, where death is real and permanent (or fixable only with high-level spells). It puts constant tension during each battle. Note: This doesn't mean I want the game to be brutally hard! Death should be rare, but feel like a serious problem when it does occur. Just like real life.

Savescumming is a thing that should be up to the player in my opinion. We'll allow you to save and reload anywhere (except maybe during combat) but you can also press on after a character has died, or even after half your party has been wiped out. Personally I'm not too fond of resurrection as a mechanic since it tends to create problems with the worldbuilding but we do have resurrection in the game since it's a staple spell of the D&D system. And like in the pen and paper D&D system, resurrection is expensive. You probably won't be able to afford it at low level, OR you might have to sell one of your best magic items to afford resurrecting a dead character.

In the pen and paper system, resurrection requires a diamond as material component for resurrection spells, and resurrected characters lose one level so they'll have to catch up to the survivors then. That's a system that sounds reasonable to me and puts enough of a penalty on death that the player will want to avoid it.

Quote
2. A quality camping system.

Pool of Radiance didn't provide a huge range of options during camping, but the time pressure of having to memorize spells is something I've never forgotten. Should I rest just long enough to memorize a few low-level heals? Or longer, to try to get back my really great wizard AoEs? The feeling of watching the camping clock whirr past was a source of dramatic tension. I still recall the "Oh, no!" feeling when a weakened party was jumped by an otherwise wimpy random encounter. Revenge of the kobolds! Resting should be a high-risk activity, away from the shelter of civilization and the comfort of a room at an inn.

As HobGoblin said above, we have a camping system that requires some resource management, and the effectiveness of resting depends on the equipment and supplies you have with you. You're out in the frozen wastelands wearing just a loincloth and sandals and got no blankets with you? Say hello to a guaranteed cold. No water in the desert? Better to get out of there than to camp there overly long. Also, while we don't have truly "random" encounters, we do have wandering mobs on the world map and they could stumble upon your camp and surprise you while you sleep, getting in a surprise round. Where to camp and when to camp will be an important strategic decision.

Quote
3. BIG fights.

I love the old-school feeling of walking into a lair stuffed full of weak opponents just begging for a fireball. Pool of Radiance served up plenty of these types of encounters, and there was something deeply satisfying about seeing a fifth-level party carve through a wall of the same goblins that bedeviled at at level 1. It gave the game a real sense of progression. You weren't just fighting the same fights as before, with slightly tougher reskinned enemies that had rescaled to your level. You were fighting entire armies, with a new required set of tactics to deal with the sheer volume of targets.

Big fights, small fights, the spice is all in the variety. When it comes to wandering mobs on the world map, they will be based on the local threats (bandit squads close to a bandit camp or around rich trade routes, orc squads near orcish camps, scorpions near scorpion lairs etc) and the sizes of these wandering mobs also vary based on location. If you're in the middle of orcish territory you can expect to meet large groups of orcish soldiers, maybe supported by goblin auxiliaries. As far as hand-placed encounters go, we'll strive for a variety of interesting combats where you have to make use of the environment and level layout and face a variety of enemies. I can imagine an encounter where you try to storm an enemy fortress, first have to cross a bridge defended by a dozen enemies, then enter the actual fortress guarded by several archers and plenty of lightly armed militia. But there will also be small scale fights against a handful of strong enemies.

Variety is the spice of encounter design.

Also, as HobGoblin already said, there will be no level scaling whatsoever. The level of wandering mobs is based on the location they appear in, and the hand-placed encounters are completely fixed. Nothing there is scaled. You can go back to a low level dungeon when you're high level and stomp the enemies there, or go to a high level dungeon at low level if you want a real challenge. The world does not scale to the player.

Quote
4. Lots of NPC options to swap around.

OK, back then most of the hired henchman were generic "fighter" types that you hired from the training hall for a few fights before they died horribly. But the idea of a game with lots of semi-disposable NPCs made the game world feel gritty and dangerous. Today, every game has a half-dozen recruitable NPCs that have full story lines and extensive recorded voice acting. That means that if one of them dies, there aren't as many options around for replacements. And that gets back to the "constant reloads vs no real death" problem. I also like the feeling that the "new guys" that you hire to replace the hero who just died horribly are weaker, and need to be trained up a bit.

It looks like RB is going to have six total party slots, so I'd probably want to play with four original characters and then swap around between hiring different NPCs for the last two -- if that's possible. But hopefully the game goes for quantity over depth, so that death can be a semi-routine occurrence and make every fight a nail-biter. That's an unpopular design decision in modern games, but it's one of the things I really liked about (for example) Battle Brothers.

Oh yeah, and if you could make a "graveyard" or a hall-of-fame list that records the names and accomplishments of my poor departed party members, that would be awesome.

Personally, I like companions with a personality whom you would want to keep around for the rest of the game. Maybe we're going to include a couple of those, BUT it's very unlikely they'll all be fully voiceacted (full VO just isn't something we consider to be of high priority; there are more important and interesting things to spend our budget on). And regardless of whether we'll implement companions with a personality and backstory, there will definitely be generic replacement NPCs to add to your party if one of your characters dies.

Even better, you can always create new characters yourself at a tavern and add them to your party/swap out a character you don't really like anymore. Say, you played a couple of hours and realized having 3 wizards in the party is a bit too much and you'd rather replace one with a fighter. You can do that at any time. One of your guys died and you don't want to pay the money to resurrect him? Hire a new guy instead.

Ideally, we'd have a few joinable NPCs with a background and personality, as well as the potential to create as many new replacement chars as you want. How to compose your party will be up to each individual player. All 6 characters created yourself, filled in with generic mercenary hireable NPCs, or with some slots taken by dedicated companions who have something to say.

Quote
5. A morale system.

This is probably a long-shot, but I love the idea that monsters sometimes decide to flee or surrender in the middle of a fight when it isn't going their way. It feels realistic, given that most monstrous creatures are cowards. Scattering a host of minions is also a great "reward" for sniping a boss from range. There's something deeply satisfying about seeing your fighters whittled down the single-digits, and then seeing the monsters suddenly make a run for the edge of the map. "That's right, you miserable bastards,  you'd better run!" As a bonus, it makes some of the really huge fights less tedious, by finishing them quickly when it's obvious that you've already won.

World map mobs you encounter can decide to flee if you've dealt plenty of damage and they're realizing that they've lost.

Quote
6. Rare magic items.

In the post-Diablo world, there are lots of games where magic items literally drop by twos and threes. Magic shops are everywhere! Constantly upgrading items takes one of the best rewards in the game and turns it into busy-work. On the other hand, the items that exist should be high-quality and impressive. I love finding an item that's so good that I'll use it for half the game. This helps to make your party members feel more unique. "This is the fighter with the flametongue sword" while the other guy is still using something mundane, or  "This is the fighter with the magic shield and plate+3" while the rest of your party has middling armor class. I like the feeling of there being not enough "good stuff" to go around... except maybe at the very end of the game.

We're going to have plenty of unique magic items with interesting powers, but they're unique and placed in fixed locations. They can be quest rewards, items in a museum you can only get your hands on by stealing, items hidden in deep dungeons which require hard fights and some puzzle solving to acquire, and even items that are broken up and have to be fixed/recombined before they can be used. Baldur's Gate 2 is a major inspiration when it comes to magic items.

But since they're unique items, there'll only be one "Firesword of Flames" in the entire game, for example. Since you mentioned Diablo, we won't have any randomized magic items. Loot will be entirely handplaced, and when it comes to the equipment of mobs they'll have reasonable non-magical weapons, or in the case of better equipped mobs they'll have +1 weapons at the most. And most of the really interesting magic items will take quite some effort to get your hands on, we're not handing out any freebies there ;)

The unique magic items will have a backstory and will be deeply anchored in the lore, connected to characters of myth and history.

Quote
7. Encumbrance limits and penalties.

I always liked the challenge of trying to tote out a huge treasure hoard of bulky silver pieces that would slow your party to a crawl. It meant periodically fighting random encounters while reduced to a snail's pace, another source of tactical variety.

Nothing to add here to HobGoblin's post. Currency has weight, so going to the bank to exchange your 1000 coppers for more handy gold pieces is a good idea. That also means that if you're almost fully encumbered and can only take along a bag of gems or some gold pieces, taking the gems and leaving the gold might be the better idea.

Quote
8. Nonlinear overland maps.

I love exploring a huge overland map that lets me take a few risks. The "dangerous areas" should be marked, but it should be possible to allow players to wander into those dangerous areas to find a better challenge. Pool of Radiance was a little too brutal in that department ("My third level party just encountered four wyverns!") but I'd rather err on the side of having a wilderness that feels legitimately dangerous, rather thane one where all the content is carefully gated and quarantined by level. That feels artificial and unrealistic.

The world map has relatively safe areas and relatively dangerous areas. The closer to civilization you are, the safer it is. The closer you are to dangerous areas in the wilderness, the more likely you will encounter difficult mobs. Depending on how you approach the game, you can entirely avoid difficult combat encounters on the world map until you have a mid level party, only having to deal with some low level bandits and wolves, if you stay on the roads and never venture out into the wilderness. Or you could be an utter madman and venture right into the most dangerous area of the game at level 1, with death being almost certain.

There will be dangerous areas with high level monsters even in the first realm you get to explore, and there will be safe areas with low level encounters even in the later areas of the game - it's all based on a believable distribution of monster and bandit lairs in the world. Of course, it might be possible that in order to reach a dungeon with level 8 creatures in it, you must first venture through a dangerous area filled with level 10 creatures, so the way there will be dangerous and challenging!

Quote
9. Random procedural lairs.

Hard to do with modern pre-drawn graphics, but I loved stumbling on an underground lair maze in the wilderness and knowing I had "one shot" to clear it out, since I'd never find it again.

We will not have random procedural lairs in our game. The world will be entirely hand-made and every dungeon will be designed by hand, with a sensible layout and interesing hand-placed encounters. We're not very fond of the trend of procedural generation that is currently popular in many indie games (the roguelike genre is pretty strong right now!) and prefer a fully hand-made world. That way we can make sure it feels organic and consistent.

Our roaming mobs aren't random either, they're based on nearby lairs on the world map. These lairs are going to spawn mobs until you've destroyed the lair, which won't be easy since these will be filled with hard enemies and a boss encounter at the end!


I'll write another reply to your points about the deficiencies of old RPGs later!

StoneAgeArtisan

  • Citizen
  • Marsh Goblin
  • 2
  • Joined
    Jun 26, 2018
    Posts
    32
#280 June 26, 2018, Tuesday, 04:27 am
"The world does not scale to the player."

Bless you.

StoneAgeArtisan

  • Citizen
  • Marsh Goblin
  • 2
  • Joined
    Jun 26, 2018
    Posts
    32
#299 July 03, 2018, Tuesday, 06:26 pm
3. BIG fights.

Yes! Like the big battle at Sokol Keep in Pool of Radiance. I don't know how many times I restarted to try and finish that battle without anyone in my party dying, but it was A LOT! And I loved every minute of it. Losing and getting frustrated just made me modify my tactics and try again. I recall doing the same thing for the dopplegangers in Durlag's Tower (BG: ToSC). I had to do the same for the final battle in the NWN2 expansion Storm of Zehir, but for a different reason: I couldn't see through all the over-the-top spell effects no matter how I rotated the camera and kept clicking on the wrong thing...even if I paused!

S-man

  • Member
  • Beach Crab
  • 1
  • Joined
    Nov 04, 2019
    Posts
    2
#1966 November 09, 2019, Saturday, 04:14 am
Not sure I agree with 4 and disposable henchmen, as I have grown fond of games with ragtag groups of misfits. 

3: Yes, fire emblem holy war and radiant dawn where great at big fights and helped build the atmosphere but it isn't just the size of the fight that matters more how it is used.   Many of the fights were good because of the variety of strategies such as run away, survive, defend, defeat boss, and KILL EVERYONE.   With rewards for fast completion or killing a boss in a survive/defend chapter.   Also siege of dragonspear didn't quite do it well as I didn't really care is five or ten allies died.

5:  Total war games did this well.   But I am not sure about this.

so for my interpretation 3.5: varied BIG FIGHTS.  Because just charging into a large battle isn't all there is. You can be under siege, trying to escape (I think D&D tactics for psp did this),  split party, water battles, fighting to supply an ally, rush through trash mobs, trade cart protection, assassination (stealth optional?), trapped in a dungeon with limited rations, holding a bridge, etc.   Also I think fighting big fights against enemies that gave you problems in the early game but now are crushed beneath you is just so satisfying.

Braveheart

  • Member
  • Marsh Goblin
  • 2
  • Joined
    Jan 17, 2019
    Posts
    25
#1968 November 12, 2019, Tuesday, 05:28 pm
Good discussion, if you are designing this game where the encounters are hand crafted and without level scaling, will we able to at least have an idea of the comparable strength of the group of mobs in the world versus your group's strength before engaging? That way we can have a chance to avoid unnecessary wipes /deaths? Say there is a dungeon we discover, but have no idea what to expect? Will the dungeon itself give us a level range or we have to go in ourselves and find out or maybe even get ambushed and get ourselves killed unnecessarily by overwhelming mobs? Do my examples use a character's skills like dungeoneering or knowledge to find out about the monsters strength or will the game's design show us by hovering over mobs or dungeons?

Also, since you said that the Orc's in the world will have a pre-determined level or level(s) as an example. I am assuming that the Orc's found in a certain region of the World which is less dangerous will be at a certain low level and if we encounter Orc's at a more dangerous part of the World those same Orc's will be at a higher level?
And say for the sake of argument, we design a quest which will allow us to make the Orc's at a higher level then what the designers for the game intended, will that be possible? For example, you have the Orc's at level 4 and I design a quest where I can make an Orc at level 6 or 7? And that goes for any creature or mobs?
Last edited: November 12, 2019, Tuesday, 06:24 pm by Braveheart

RedPaladin

  • Member
  • Beach Crab
  • 1
  • Joined
    Oct 03, 2019
    Posts
    8
    Location
    Cold North
#1969 November 12, 2019, Tuesday, 09:02 pm
Auto level kills RPGs. This is inappropriate. The meaning of the development of the hero is lost. For whom to develop a hero, if enemies grow in level on a par with him. Not logical stupidity. The meaning of the game is development, in order to survive and go through the game to the end. Could not win? Develop!)) If there is an auto level, you can remove the entire development of the hero. There will be no meaning in it .  If the enemies, orc) became weak over time, come and break them!) Show who you were, and when you developed. In an old-school RPG, that was exactly the rule. ;)
Last edited: November 12, 2019, Tuesday, 09:08 pm by RedPaladin
Sorry for my English )

LadyBard

  • Town Guard
  • Marsh Goblin
  • 2
  • Joined
    Nov 13, 2018
    Posts
    46
#1977 November 14, 2019, Thursday, 10:15 am
I want to reload after death, it does feel cheap and I really don't need RL death xp?

Night

  • Town Guard
  • Marsh Goblin
  • 2
  • Joined
    Oct 12, 2019
    Posts
    14
#1978 November 14, 2019, Thursday, 11:13 am
I also don't like that the clashes are self-leveled. But I would like to have the chance to escape from a fight that is too difficult and not necessarily have to die and reload. A system of escape from difficult clashes with some consequence for the party would not be bad indeed it would make the action more credible.

HobGoblin42

  • Administrator
  • Wildland Warrior
  • 5
  • Joined
    Aug 03, 2016
    Posts
    318
    Location
    Munich
#1981 November 14, 2019, Thursday, 10:33 pm
We don't have level scaling or auto levelling for enemies.
Some areas are more dangerous than others, with more powerful encounters.

During overland encounters, you can actually flee but you need to match some criterias to do so. If one of your characters is already down, you'll lose him/her.

Night

  • Town Guard
  • Marsh Goblin
  • 2
  • Joined
    Oct 12, 2019
    Posts
    14
#1982 November 15, 2019, Friday, 06:11 pm
This news is wonderful. It is right that those unable to escape due to fatigue, too much damage or other limiting conditions must suffer the consequences. Maybe a check on hiding, moving silently or surviving could make these unfortunate fugitives escape death at last :)
I can't wait to see it all with a nice demo video from DEV.

RedPaladin

  • Member
  • Beach Crab
  • 1
  • Joined
    Oct 03, 2019
    Posts
    8
    Location
    Cold North
#1983 November 15, 2019, Friday, 10:35 pm
We don't have level scaling or auto levelling for enemies.
Some areas are more dangerous than others, with more powerful encounters.

During overland encounters, you can actually flee but you need to match some criterias to do so. If one of your characters is already down, you'll lose him/her.
Wonderful. The auto level is the scourge of the gaming industry. Moreover, the players do not understand the meaning of this meaninglessness. I am very pleased with your position on the meaning of the game world. Thank you so much.
Last edited: November 15, 2019, Friday, 10:37 pm by RedPaladin
Sorry for my English )

daveyd

  • Citizen
  • Gelatinous Cube
  • 3
  • Joined
    May 09, 2018
    Posts
    75
#1986 November 17, 2019, Sunday, 04:42 pm
I don't like enemy level scaling as a general rule. There's no reason for skeletons and zombies wandering the halls of some ancient ruins to suddenly become more powerful just because time has passed. 

On the other hand, I can think of some legitimate story based reasons it could happen in some cases. So let's suppose the party receives a sidequest  to deal with a gang of bandits terrorizing travelers on a road.  If you choose to ignore the quest for a significant period of time, then it would make sense that the bandits will be a higher level if you fight them later, since they would likely be gaining experience and power over time.

So I suppose I'd be OK with some "scaling" in limited situations when there is a good rationale for it; perhaps not even based on your level but consequences of the player's actions.  For ex: You chose to let a necromancer live and now there are more / stronger undead in the area. 

Or another thing I actually like the idea of is that another group of adventurers might deal with a quest, or it otherwise becomes unsolvable if you wait "too long" to complete it.  To me that would add to the sense that this a living breathing world, not a static one waiting for you to solve every problem at your leisure.   

Anyway, I know "timed quests" are controversial and many players would probably hate them (and expect an option to shut off timers in the difficulty settings)... And I wouldn't want anything too restrictive.  I would not want any part of the main questline to have any sort of time limit, unless the story really demands it.  But I do think having some side quests that will eventually change or be resolved on their own could add some depth and immersion.   If the quest has a strong sense of urgency, like the miller is frantically running around town shouting "Please help! I think my children are lost in the woods infested with vicious goblins" it always strikes me as kind of silly and gamey to me that my party can go play cards in the inn, rest, do a bit of shopping, and then be just as likely to rescue the miller's children a full game day later then as if you had immediately charged into the forest after speaking with the miller.  I'd like to see some sort of middle ground between having two minutes and thirty seconds to beat each quest and a world that never ever changes until your party does something. 

Night

  • Town Guard
  • Marsh Goblin
  • 2
  • Joined
    Oct 12, 2019
    Posts
    14
#1987 November 17, 2019, Sunday, 05:22 pm
So I suppose I'd be OK with some "scaling" in limited situations when there is a good rationale for it; perhaps not even based on your level but consequences of the player's actions.  For ex: You chose to let a necromancer live and now there are more / stronger undead in the area. 

Or another thing I actually like the idea of is that another group of adventurers might deal with a quest, or it otherwise becomes unsolvable if you wait "too long" to complete it.  To me that would add to the sense that this a living breathing world, not a static one waiting for you to solve every problem at your leisure.   

It would definitely be great to see a game do these things, but as a developer I can tell you that this kind of algorithm is really complex. I think this is the real difference between playing with people and with a CRPG. There is nowhere a game that can react as you say and to develop it we would really need lots of people and lots of time. Maybe one day, when a decent AI is developed we could see more reactive games, but for now the developers should put themselves there and create every single possibility by hand and I don't see how enthusiasts like Ceres can cope with the scarce resources they have.

 You can always amaze me I would be delighted  :P :P :P :P :P