Messages

16

General / Re: Adding/Removing Items from the Barter Window Quickly?

« on: May 13, 2013, 05:36:30 pm »

Well, you can shift-click stacks to split them up, in any amount you like. And when you pick out the items you want to buy you can select "auto" to have the exact amount of cash needed placed into the barter window.

17

Suggestions / Re: Noob Question

« on: May 13, 2013, 02:14:38 am »

Yes, both have been suggested.

18

Suggestions / Re: Dialogue Choices that Matter

« on: May 11, 2013, 09:10:28 am »

I also really liked how in Fallout you could fail miserably at a dialogue encounter.



Oh, what fun that was.

19

Suggestions / Re: Blackmoor's Money Suggestions

« on: May 11, 2013, 09:01:01 am »

Also a good way to make a modest sum of money is to pick a bunch of mushrooms when you can (doesn't take too long), and also use the dog crates that are periodically restocked in the pens section of your base to capture more cave hoppers. You can sell them for a nice profit with good barter skill.

Oh! I'll have to try that. Up until now, I've exclusively made money by scavenging equipment and selling it in the starting city. But it sounds like selling cave hoppers is an unlimited revenue stream. Still, I stand by my suggestion to provide more financial opportunities for people who really want to pursue it.

And I'll just reiterate how much I agree with your idea to allow suspicion to fade over time. 

20

Suggestions / Re: Blackmoor's Money Suggestions

« on: May 10, 2013, 10:57:32 pm »

It's still possible to steal weapons and other heavy stuff, although its harder. You cannot steal equipped stuff or from the merchants inventories, though the latter might change in the future.

Hello Styg. Good to hear you might be expanding the stealing system. Is there any chance that the suspicion bar might naturally fade over time? While suspicion is a good way to keep things balanced, but I think over time there should be forgiveness and a regeneration of items.

I really don't understand how you guys are so broke. I was able to gather more than enough money in each iteration of the game, even when the weapon degradation was very severe and I never invest into bartering skill.

I invest heavily in bartering, but selling a huge amount of loot only provides a few hundred credits, while buying a full stack of 50 bullets or full stack of 10 hypos costs a few thousand credits. I'm not saying the money system should be easy, please keep it challenging. But it's stacked heavily against the player and there should be more options and opportunities to make money. For players who like to shop, this is a seriously challenging aspect of the game.

21

Suggestions / Re: Blackmoor's Money Suggestions

« on: May 10, 2013, 09:42:01 pm »

I feel like, at the very least, the option to steal more expensive weapons should be available to the dedicated pickpocket (as well as more money).

Lazymonk does make a good point in that stealing a bozar from the guard in F2 did seem a bit unfair. For me it resulted in save scumming to get a really good item, then selling it for enough money to buy my favorite weapon, the .223 pistol. But I strongly believe that that type of gameplay can be very fun if done in a fairer way - so for a person who invests a lot of points into pickpocket and stealth, they should have the option to steal heavier weaponry, and would be able to succeed in stealing it.

The same should go for money - as you become a better pickpocket, you are capable of stealing progressively more and more money from merchants that an ordinary thief couldn't get away with.

Currently I dislike the dynamic of filling up a bar and not being able to steal anymore, simply because it seems quite unrealistic. But I understand that something like it is necessary to prevent stealing from being either overpowered, or leading to save scumming.

I feel like a more reasonable approach, might be to allow the player to only steal a certain amount from the merchant (or other NPC). After that experience, the NPC will become more guarded, and his remaining items will be harder to steal. So only after you invest more points, will you have the option to steal those items available again, in addition to any larger items in his/her inventory. Since most characters will only have 4-5 items on them (where an item could also be a stack of money/ammo/etc.), I feel like this inventory categorization wouldn't take too much time.

Either way I hope Styg finds a way to incorporate an interesting but fair pickpocketing system into the game, which is hopefully a bit more realistic and allows for more progression as a pickpocket, so you could go back to older areas and still use the skill.

- - -

I like the suggestions for improvement on money in general, certainly with the locked chests at least. Also I am all favor of more skill-related quests.

Money is definitely hard to come by. I'm not even sure what its like to play a character that doesn't invest as many points into barter with each new level; I shudder to think at how difficult it would be to even buy one or two repair kits. Thankfully now degradation rates are reduced so its probably not as hellish as I imagine

I agree completely.

Especially about the limitations of the suspicion bar. Ideally, the bar should reset itself after a certain period of time (maybe if you sleep and come back the next day). Since there is a very limited number of NPCs in the game and an even smaller amount of traders, this mechanic punishes players who invest skills in stealing unfairly. Hopefully Styg will find a way to balance these issues, while keeping the game challenging and fun.

The money system should be challenging, sure, but the more options and opportunities the better.

22

Suggestions / Dialogue Choices that Matter

« on: May 10, 2013, 04:46:22 pm »

Request:

Styg: Please make sure dialogue in Underrail has consequences.

Explanation:

Based on the classic RPGs of the past, I strongly believe that dialogue should not simply be an exercise in exhausting every option until the player finally gets the next quest, but also a challenge to win. A dialogue encounter should be a role-playing exercise in which the player has to make the right choices. If you horribly insult an NPC, that NPC should refuse to help you (because you made a bad choice) or there should be an appropriate consequence (such as a smaller reward). This will cause players to take dialogue seriously and attempt to make the correct choice to get the best outcomes. Choices should matter. When the player realizes there are consequences to picking bad dialogue, they will take dialogue more seriously and therefore become more immersed in your game. Plus, it increases replay value.

Summary:

Dialogue should be a challenge that you can win or lose, because choices that don't matter are arbitrary.

Example:

In Planescape: Torment, the player could actually fail dialogue encounters.



The same can be said for Fallout 1, both of which are considered two of the best RPGs ever.

Further Reading:

Planescape: Turnment Review

Choice and Consequence Review

23

Suggestions / Re: Games within Underrail

« on: May 10, 2013, 04:14:37 pm »

I agree that arbitrary choices aren't fun, because they aren't really choices at all.

But when you play a board game, you do have the ability to play for a draw, a win or try to lose and that's not an arbitrary choice at all. When playing for a win you might have different win percentage chances depending on the style you play, aggressive, positional or tactical. So that's a significant choice and I think it would add a layer of depth to the encounter.

P.S. You actually can apply win percentages to chess openings statistically.

Yeah of course. I wasn't saying the choices you suggested were invalid, just that it's possible to justify a wide range of choices as being valid and, whilst some choices are sensible to one person they may appear arbitrary to another. I also don't see the point of having a set up with 2 or 3 dialogues and trying to replicate a game that requires potentially many moves. Would that really be any fun?

To me, absolutely.

All I am suggesting are ways to make dialogue challenges more dynamic. No that my specific example is the way to implement it, but it does describe a system that I think would be interesting. In chess, players make choices and those choices effect outcomes.

Cards is a little bit different as long as it's done right - I've not seen the in game gambling yet so can't comment - maybe even a dice game, but I generally derive no enjoyment out of playing these choice type games.

The core appeal of an RPG is that choice matters. But chess isn't for everyone, it was merely an example.

24

Suggestions / Re: Games within Underrail

« on: May 09, 2013, 08:57:40 pm »

Rather than simulate the whole game, it would be simpler to simulate certain key choices. I was thinking there would be a dialogue option stage, then an intelligence check and a die roll to determine if they won or not. For example:

Play a game? Yes / No

(The following are a random array of dialogue choices, which would be different every time.)

1. I play the Queen's Gambit! (50% change to lead to win)
2. I play the King's Pawn opening (50% change to lead to win)
3. I play the Rook Pawn Bluff. (20% change to lead to win)
4. I play the Knight's opening. (40% change to lead to win)

Then there would be a final array of dialogue choices:

1. Play for a small advantage.
2. Play for the draw.
3. Gamble it all for the win.
4. Play to lose.

Then the intelligence check would modify the final die roll and win lose conditions are announced.

I really dislike this sort of thing in games. The arbitrary choices really remove any feel of playing a sub game. It, to me, would be just as entertaining to have a single "Play chess" choice and then the result randomly chosen automatically with no messing around in between. I think if any sub games are put in then they really should have a proper interface and graphics, I'd likely avoid them otherwise.

I agree that arbitrary choices aren't fun, because they aren't really choices at all.

But when you play a board game, you do have the ability to play for a draw, a win or try to lose and that's not an arbitrary choice at all. When playing for a win you might have different win percentage chances depending on the style you play, aggressive, positional or tactical. So that's a significant choice and I think it would add a layer of depth to the encounter.

P.S. You actually can apply win percentages to chess openings statistically.

25

Development Log / Re: Dev Log #17: Version 0.1.8.0 released

« on: May 09, 2013, 07:10:37 pm »

I made a sort of melee dagger and psychokinesis hybrid. At level 4 you get Electrokinesis just good for the GMS compound. I gotta say it is so awesome against those 4 drones at level 2. Got them come to me and just cast it like three times to destroy all 4 of them.

Maybe you should increase the psi consumption since there is no cooldown and maybe take off the 1 sec stun.

I don't have a problem with increased consumption, but I think electricity always stuns mechanical hostiles.

26

Discussions / Re: RPG Discussion Thread

« on: May 09, 2013, 06:58:10 pm »

Thanks for the comments, guys.

The difference in a game like Fallout is that it is the opposite of Oblivion in all of these areas.  First of all you have the ability to actually make choices; secondly, the quests have a clear influence on the world and how people perceive you, and what kinds of quests you are eligible for based on your decisions.

I very much agree.

But I think a more fair comparison to make would be Fallout 1, which was a masterpiece, and Fallout 3, which was merely a good game. Assuming it's fair to compare these two games, Fallout 3 had a fun combat system, but the choices and consequences were mostly trivial. It came down to this: either help one group and get reward A or help another group and get reward B. It was certainly a better game than Oblivion, but it wasn't a masterpiece, for many of the same reasons. Sure, you could blow up Megaton, which was awesome! But one good example of consequence doesn't make up for a general lack of depth, compared to the original game. It didn't make me feel paranoid that if I made the wrong decision there would be unforeseen consequences that actually mattered to the plot. A good example is that there was no way to fail dialogue in Fallout 3, I simply exhausted every dialogue option to get as much information as I wanted. While Fallout 1, in stark contrast, I felt like every choice mattered, including everything I said.

If every dialogue option and every action really mattered in Fallout 3, it could have been great (or greater).

So I guess to summarize, it has to have meaningful choice and consequence, engaging combat, and an interesting atmosphere and story that you can replay from different angles.  I at least like the idea Bethesda repeatedly brings up of "radiant AI" but which horribly fails nearly every time, and one day I think we can create truly emergent game play and AI. But for now I really enjoy a deep, well-crafted story more than a big, stale, repetitive playground where I fight the same types of foes over and over again for no real reason.

I agree with this 100%. I do like Bethesda games, but they aren't as deep as, say, Planescape: Torment.

I'll take a compelling setting and choices that matter over a big AAA title any day.

27

Suggestions / Re: Games within Underrail

« on: May 08, 2013, 07:15:45 pm »

Rather than simulate the whole game, it would be simpler to simulate certain key choices. I was thinking there would be a dialogue option stage, then an intelligence check and a die roll to determine if they won or not. For example:

Play a game? Yes / No

(The following are a random array of dialogue choices, which would be different every time.)

1. I play the Queen's Gambit! (50% change to lead to win)
2. I play the King's Pawn opening (50% change to lead to win)
3. I play the Rook Pawn Bluff. (20% change to lead to win)
4. I play the Knight's opening. (40% change to lead to win)

Then there would be a final array of dialogue choices:

1. Play for a small advantage.
2. Play for the draw.
3. Gamble it all for the win.
4. Play to lose.

Then the intelligence check would modify the final die roll and win lose conditions are announced.

28

Suggestions / Re: Games within Underrail

« on: May 08, 2013, 05:31:11 pm »

* Spoiler Alert *

There is an establishment where you can gamble in the game.

----

But I like the idea of other games within the game. For example, a boardgame (like chess) that you do an intelligence check and move through dialogue options to win. You wouldn't need to simulate the entire game, just a bit of role-playing and the win/lose conditions.

29

Suggestions / Re: Non-leathal Weapons and Subdue

« on: May 07, 2013, 09:21:57 pm »

These are great ideas, and would enhance the stealth gameplay and add subdue elements increasing the variety of gameplay styles possible.
Other options might be the ability to hide subdued or defeated opponents so as to not incite hostility as long s the are moved out of view.

Thanks, stealth game mechanics are always fun. While a complex concealment and detection mechanic would be great, such a complex new mechanic might be considered Feature Creep. I'd settle for guards simply not caring if their buddy is asleep, as long as they don't see the player subduing him.

30

Suggestions / Re: Cover system

« on: May 07, 2013, 09:13:33 pm »

This was something I've considered in the past, but you pretty brought up the problem I ran into - "how one would determine whether it is low enough to see over". Because the game was not designed with this from the get go, it would take a lot of work to introduce the necessary properties to the objects and relate them to their position (which is not always centered on the tile) for this work.

So no, concealment modifiers from terrain won't be implemented. However, they might be implemented for other stuff such as smoke.

That's understandable. A cover system is incredibly complicated because every piece of terrain has to know what percentage it covers and from what direction the cover protects. Smoke would be interesting tactically and I assume it would be easier to implement. Plus, we can always have more Feats.