Al Fabet

[Elhazzared]

And why are we talking about respawning enemies exactly? If you are merely refering to the portal in arcanum I merely did it at the time cause it was retardedly good XP and no, it wasn't easy, I had to very carefully pull one at a time, sometimes 2 came and they did loads of damage and damaged my armor with each attack. Normally I wouldn't kill all because it required a certain build to work and even then I had to be extremely careful. However it wasn't just respawning enemies, cause it threw harder and harder stuff at you, when I did it was to see how much XP I could get before closing it and to see if there was a limit on enemies and indeed there was... As far as underrail goes, I don't fight respawning enemies usually I used to do an area once and that's that.

Arcanum is indeed a case where there is more to see in some quests by playing differently. Also no I haven't tried the unofficial patch, didn't even knew there was one. I had first the original, then I bought later on a new copy of the CD very cheap that came already with the latest official patch but it was still broken in places. for example, the owner of the brothel started lowering her likeless of you each time you visited untill the point where she just attacked you or the dragon cave chest provoked an instant crash. just to qoute a couple I remember.

Dirtman - For others? Everyone else can go die in a fire. It's my loot, my money, if they everyone else wants to loot, they have to beat me to it.

Also I don't want unlimited loot and respawns. I only want to get what I earned in that fight. If you think I don't like challenge you are wrong. I'd gladly play underrail on the hardest dificulty, ironman mode if I had no weight limits and merchants buy it all. All I want is my due, that all.

[Eliasfrost]

Are we still bringing this up? I thought it was a lost cause?

I might be misinformed but are there trainers that allow you to remove the carry weight? I think I heard someone mentioning it, could be wrong. Trade limits might be more difficult to alter, not sure if there are mods for that yet.

It all comes down to intent and design, which is subject to the creator and not the ones that play it (most of the time). Styg decided that the game will work this way, there's really nothing to do about it (aside from modding). One can debate this forever, there's no right or wrong answer. What matters is why it was implemented the way it was, not why something else wasn't. I have already detailed my thoughts on the why's of the design of trading and encumbrance in Underrail so I won't repeat myself again. I just find it funny that this is still rolling knowing nothing will change. I think this discussion was heading the wrong direction from the start.

[Fenix]

I think this discussion was heading the wrong direction from the start.

...which was a few years ago.

[Elhazzared]

Are we still bringing this up? I thought it was a lost cause?

I might be misinformed but are there trainers that allow you to remove the carry weight? I think I heard someone mentioning it, could be wrong. Trade limits might be more difficult to alter, not sure if there are mods for that yet.

It all comes down to intent and design, which is subject to the creator and not the ones that play it (most of the time). Styg decided that the game will work this way, there's really nothing to do about it (aside from modding). One can debate this forever, there's no right or wrong answer. What matters is why it was implemented the way it was, not why something else wasn't. I have already detailed my thoughts on the why's of the design of trading and encumbrance in Underrail so I won't repeat myself again. I just find it funny that this is still rolling knowing nothing will change. I think this discussion was heading the wrong direction from the start.

One thing did lead to another but the start of the topic did boil down to. Pitty that Styg chose to make a mockery out of serious and good feedback rather than listening to it. Eventually it did lead to the explanation of why I said this and the discussion of this topic once again.

There is cheatengine that can disable carry weight yes! Nothing that fixes the broken traders. Fact of the matter is, the people who were interested in modding this game so far still don't know what they need to have in order to mod the game cause they don't recognise the game code language or something like that. Apparently Styg does not wants to disclosure this or release modding tools. At least not just yet.

It may be true that debating this might not help it, at least as far as Styg is concerned cause he wants to stick with a poor design decision just because he came up with something different. I guess it do is as pointless as exploring or doing sidequests in underrail.

I can only hope that some day some one will be able to make head and tails out of the language and mod the game into something playable at which point I will play and will give credit for a good game to that modder and that modder only.

[player1]

The thing is, you are so single-minded on this issue, on subjective level, that it is no wonder why joke was created in the game.

I can already picture Al Fabet rationalizing that while he has 200,000 stygs, and nothing to buy with them, that he can still not leave those sledgehammers lying around to waste. He earned them, he must get them. Animal hearts too.

[Elhazzared]

Because this issue is rather important. It's important to the point of a game going from, best game since fallout 2 to worst crpg I've ever played. That's the level of importance of this issue.

[Eliasfrost]

He didn't make a mockery out of serious and good feedback. It was (and still is to an extent) good feedback, the problem is that no matter how many times it was repeated that this is the way the design is heading and your feedback is good but not in line with their vision, you kept bringing it up and prodding this issue despite knowing it won't change. Sometimes even going to frustrating lengths like saying that their design is objectively bad and other such nonsense. That's the thing that is mocked, not the initial feedback. I think you need to look at this with some good ol' self-aware, self-deprecating humour.

[Elhazzared]

I kept bringing up the issue in the past for a simple reason. Styg never said we are not going to do this. Styg said he might implement the option between the 2 systems and as I've said in the past, it wouldn't cost much development time because the system was already made and working, if anything just a slight adjustment needed for the new items introduced meanwhile. So I kept asking for this to be a priority, much like the XP had both oddity and classic from the moment Styg decided to implement the oddity, the same concept should have been applied to the merchants and carry weight system.

So I obviously kept asking since there was the chance that Styg would actually implement it as he put it on the table himself! At no point did he ever say. No we're never going to implement the old (and better) system as an option anymore.

Granted, right now there is no point in asking, Styg has made it clear that he wants this horrible system to be the way to play the game.

You say it's not a mockery of feedback but from my point of view, it is. I don't take it as a personal insult, but it do is a mockery of good feedback none the less.

[Eliasfrost]

It was kinda heavily implied after a while that it wouldn't happen though, I mean years ago. No one is denying that you feel as though your feedback is being mocked, for all intents and purposes the character perfectly illustrates the kind of gameplay Styg wants Underrail to have. What I'm trying to say is that it's not your suggestion in itself that is being made fun of, it's that your behaviour honestly kinda warranted this kind of response. Some of the stuff you've said about the design of Underrail implies that you think Styg is incompetent by saying that the design is horrible, non-ironically ranking the game as one of your worst and calling the design objectively flawed.

We can always discuss whether it would require lots of development time without getting to a conclusion because honestly we don't know. There might have been a significant amount of balancing in work to get this to work and there might have been very little. If they were to implement something like this it always comes down to whether its worth it and we don't know either way because we lack info. Therefore speculating on that is futile.

It sounds like you feel you've been betrayed or let down. It was a maybe after all. And they decided no, for whatever reason. Though I think Al Fabet hints quite strongly that it was simply a design decision and maybe a wee bit of spite like you suggest. *shrug*

[Elhazzared]

That is what you feel from it. To me it feels like a mockery of the feedback that was given because if it was simply a case of agreeying the feedback was good but just not liking the insistence on something that is after all very important, then there would have been no need to make a mockery out it.

I don't think Styg is incompetent but I do think he is hard headed. The design decision was frankly horrible. I presented plenty of proof that it was flawed and that the system was objectively worse than the previous one. Styg chose to keep it because he wanted to make something different. Not because it was better but because he made something different and it is his game so he will have his way.

Looking at it objectively, having the option to at least use the original system would have not hurt the game in any way, in fact, it would only bring more people to buy and play because it would please a larger amount of people and in the great scheme of things, it wouldn't change what underrail is.

You say you don't know whether implementing the old system would take a long development time or not. I'm telling I know for sure it wouldn't because it was already in place. It was 100% made and working, it's just adding an option to the options menu to to flick between them (or maybe to the start new game menu). the only thing needed to do was add the new items to the old system which is little more than adding the command to fetch the item from the item list.

And yes I feel let down massively. I've been waiting for years and years for a game that would at least come close to fallout 2. Underrail appears only to be brought down by a bad design decision. One that was ultimatly unnecessary because it isn't a case where you can't even have a choice.

I could understand if it was a case where it was just impossible to have 2 concurrent systems because it would fundamentaly change the game. I could understand it if it was a case that no system was better, they just had good and bad points. But it was not the case. Both systems can be there without changing what the game is and more than that. The new system is downright bad. I presents no single positive point over the old system.

Let's look at both systems from an objective point.

Old system:

The good:
Gives you the choice to grab everything or only what's valuable.
Makes sure exploration is rewarded with loot and XP (loot is always worth something as it is worth money).
Makes sure that all side quests are worth it for the same reasons as exploring.
Allows you to go to a single settlement and sell everything to the merchants around.
Does not breaks game immersion by having you stop mid quest, possibly several times, to go and dump loot.
The bad:
Too much money floating in the economy.
Not very realistic.

The new system:

The good:
More realistic.
The bad:
Even more money floating in the economy.
Breaks game immersion by forcing the player to stop several times to dump loot.
Encourages the player not to explore because the loot is going to be left behind (at least a large part).
Encourages the player not to do side quests, same reason as exploration.
Forces the player to play in a single playstyle which is leave loot behind rather than actually letting the player decide his playstyle.
Forces the player to waste his time going to various settlements in order to sell his spoils making him waste a lot of time just running around.

This is what we see from both systems when we look at them objectively. It's isn't just a design decision, it is objectively a bad design decision.

What is truly sad is that Styg is a capable developer, apart from this system he's shown he can design a really good game. If only he was less stubborn and more accepting of the opinion of people trying to help him create a better game (that is what early access is for after all) he'd have a really great game that could possibly compete with fallout 2 for one of the best cRPG ever made.

[Elhazzared]

I was under the impression that system came to be before Styg started hiring, but it was so long ago that I can be wrong. However, if it was from another Dev then it makes it even more incompreensible as to why it was chosen. Never the less, Styg do is the one who makes the final decision and his was to stick with it.

[Eliasfrost]

The forums is cutting posts with certain character, give me a minute to fix this. ^^

EDIT no 13: fixed it. Gee these forums man

I should mention that when I say Styg I mean the development team, not just Styg himself.

Removing features from a game can sometime require just as much resources as adding features. I work with games so I know this. We don't know how much work was required to rebalance the game after the update released and since.

It's ok that you feel let down but that's on you, it was never a promise it was a consideration. He didn't snag something from under your nose, he removed something you like, there's a difference. And it's a bummer for some but let's not pretend that this is on Styg because it isn't.

Your perspective is not objective, it's entirely subjective and that's ok. Evident by the fact that some of the points you bring up as bad/good are being perceived as the opposite by someone else. And don't retaliate with that one thing you said a while ago about liking/disliking an "objectively flawed" system because that's a logical fallacy. The simple fact that people have different opinions on a matter renders every opinion on it subjective. Including your own.

This is not a matter of making something right or wrong, better or worse. It's a matter of intent and design, Styg wants his players to play after a certain set of rules (like every other single game), you just happen to dislike some of those decisions and try to justify it by twisting it and convincing yourself that you're objectively right. There's such a thing as being overly confident in your ideas and I think you are irrationally married to what you think is good design and won't hear anything else. It's impossible to debate with you because you haven't reasoned yourself into thisso it's impossible to reason you out of it.

If I were looking at things objectively (or at least as objective as I can because objectivity in itself is kind of a flawed concept when applied to human rationale) I would conclude that: some people like this, some people don't. I happen to dislike it, well bummer but what can I do.

I mean you can dislike a system, you can air your opinion about but when you get to the point where you are unflinching in your devotion to convince others you're right you will find it even harder to convince others because you paradoxically seem talked into thinking what you think rather than rationalizing you way there, even if it comes from yourself. That's why preachers are such easy targets for ridicule.

[Elhazzared]

That is where you are wrong. You can define things as being objectively right or wrong.

Saying that you prefer one or another system is subjective. Pointing out what different system do for a game is objective.

In any game you'll always play by a certain set of rules, that much is true, however the more choice you have the better, this is not subjective, this is objective.

For example. It's always better to be able to solve a quest in multiple ways, than only having a single way to solve a quest.

It's always better for an FPS to have lots of places to explore (not necessarely saying open world) than to be a rail shooter.

It's always better when a game encourages the players to try out different things and to go out of the beaten path.

Option are just good. This is not subjective at all.

The new system pretty much seems to encourage players to play in a single play style. Ignore loot, ignore exploration, ignore sidequest. Just go on a rail doing the main storyline and be done with it. All because the incentive to go out of your way is gone.

Now I will agree that removing a system to implement a new one takes times and time is money, especially in the development of a game. That said the old system still exists, implementing the option is as simple as putting it back. Everything is coded, it's just putting it back in place and then set the option to use one or the other. Assuming all you need to do is implement it and add the linking to the new items, it's something that can be done in one or two days easily.

Certainly, it will take a lot more time for a modder to grab the game and make the old system from scratch as they don't have the files and even then I'd bet you anything that a modder would be able to get rid of the buying limits and while he's at it, just remove carry weights directly in a couple days. It's actually when you have to make new pieces of art and dialogues and adding things, modifying the maps that it starts taking a long while to get anything done. Just diving into the code and making a few alterations is relatively quick.

[Eliasfrost]

I guess the only thing I can say to that is you should check out the stuff made by Team ICO, their games are univerally praised despite being incredibly minimalistic and restraining. Though it should be noted that their design philosophy actually improve their game, it's a philosophy called design by subtraction. That giving players options is always a good thing is not true, it's highly situational and it all comes down to what you want to say and how you want your players to react to the box you put them into, the more cleverly you design a game, the more the size of that box cease to be relevant, what matters is the posibility space given. So no, there's no objective truth to game design, at least not as long as we as human beings set the precedence for what should be considered objective, because all our impressions are subjective.

"...The new system pretty much seems to encourage..."

No, it encourage *you* to do all those things. This is what you need to understand El, this is the way *you* force yourself to play the game because it's not designed the way you want. Most players do explore the maps, do quests and pick up loot, the difference is that they do it in accordance to the rules. You want to sidestep the rules and thus you get punished and you feel unfairly treated. It's about your response to the rules, not the rules themselves. You don't want to take responsibility over your reactions and want to blame everything else for being unfair, badly designed or objectively flawed. You need to pull yourself up by the bootstraps and realize that you are having a problem with the system, the system is not the problem.

No, it's not just as easy as "just putting it back". Unless you want something untested, unbalanced and subpar. Remember that a lot of balancing has been made since the change, and without the previous model in mind. The game is not balanced for infinite inventory and unrestricted trading. How much that imbalance is we don't know and that's why I said previously that it's futile to speculate and saying that it's just a matter of a few lines is speaking from a place of ignorance, unless you know the framework, which we don't.

[player1]

The new system pretty much seems to encourage players to play in a single play style. Ignore loot, ignore exploration, ignore sidequest. Just go on a rail doing the main storyline and be done with it. All because the incentive to go out of your way is gone.

Pure theorycrafting. Nothing objective about it. Just guesswork on your side.

In fact, it is blatantly false. But how can you know, since you never properly played the game with current rules for any decent length of time?