Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[chrismdp]

So in case you've not seen there is now a night mode for the demo, complete with interactive scenery...

I'm also running a Thunderclap for tomorrow afternoon, so if you'd like to see the campaign funded, and don't mind donating a tweet or Facebook post to the campaign, sign up here.

Thanks!

[frightlever]

"Back a new kind of RPG, with procedural storytelling & realistic strategic combat. Just one week left!"

It's me again, your biggest fan. Tried the demo. It's basically Roguelike combat where time advances every time the player moves (or clicks). So as far as I could tell there's no combat rounds or initiative, like you'd see in a realtime-with-pause style system (eg Baldurs Gate or UFO Afterlight - UFO:A was actually a decent game, unlike the two previous games), and no action points per character, like you'd have in turn-based system (eg Jagged Alliance). Options to strike, feint and counter, but not defend, or not that I could find. You're going to suffer if you intend to make the combat remotely realistic if you persist with the current system where everyone moves simultaneously after the player moves, and I didn't see the option to call in airstrikes so I assume you mean tactical combat. Which brings me back to my original point: words matter, particularly in something you're attempting to market as an RPG.

[chrismdp]

*waves* 

It's basically Roguelike combat where time advances every time the player moves (or clicks). So as far as I could tell there's no combat rounds or initiative, like you'd see in a realtime-with-pause style system (eg Baldurs Gate or UFO Afterlight - UFO:A was actually a decent game, unlike the two previous games), and no action points per character, like you'd have in turn-based system (eg Jagged Alliance). Options to strike, feint and counter, but not defend, or not that I could find.

That's correct. There are no rounds or action points - faster characters will get to take more turns. Defending or blocking against attacks is instinctive and therefore implicit within the system, although not all the animations are in yet. There are also improvements to make in how it communicates to the player what's going on, and I'm planning to replace the characters and animations for the full game.

[frightlever]

So if you attack a faster character they'll attack you back twice? And a really fast enemy will attack you three times for every one of your attacks? Hopefully I misunderstood.

[forsaken1111]

So if you attack a faster character they'll attack you back twice? And a really fast enemy will attack you three times for every one of your attacks? Hopefully I misunderstood.

Isn't that exactly how roguelike combat works? I know in Crawl if I am super slow I might be hit 3-4 times by a faster enemy before I can respond

[chrismdp]

So if you attack a faster character they'll attack you back twice? And a really fast enemy will attack you three times for every one of your attacks? Hopefully I misunderstood.

A character that's twice as fast as you will attack you back twice, yes. But that's really very fast and a huge advantage. If a character is only 10% faster and they make the exact same attacks as you (different moves take different amounts of time) then they will get a free attack every 10 times you both attack. At the moment, you can tell how close a character is to a new turn by checking the circle underneath them (this UI may change).

It's being able to both react and move faster. Your weapon weight will make you slower, but your strength will offset this effect. Your reflexes will make you slightly faster (but not very much).

Hope that explains things a little more.

Isn't that exactly how roguelike combat works? I know in Crawl if I am super slow I might be hit 3-4 times by a faster enemy before I can respond

Yes, but as speed increases give a big advantage in the Ealdorlight system, they will be toned down from this level.

[frightlever]

Yeah that makes a lot more sense. When playing the demo it just looked like everyone was attacking simultaneously - but they were all basically the same character type I was playing so I suppose that would be accurate.

[chrismdp]

So the campaign is done. Didn't hit the goal, but a number of positives and lessons to draw out of the experience.

I'm running a very short survey to decide what's next for Ealdorlight. Please would you mind filling it out? I'm especially interested if you didn't actually back the project!

Fill in survey and help decide what's next for Ealdorlight and me

I'm going to pause work on Ealdorlight to figure out what I should do. Without budget for a proper team, I'm not going to be able to do the game justice in its current form. I may choose to cut design, scope and the art requirements right down to a simpler game.

In the meantime, my game development time will be focused on Sol Trader. The core history generation and AI engine will always be shared between the two games, and I was always planning on improving this further during the development of Ealdorlight. Working on Sol Trader's core engine makes it a better game, serves my existing Kickstarter backers, and solidifies the platform on which I can build Ealdorlight in future.

Thanks Bay12 forums! for all the support, shoutouts, discussion, etc. It's meant the world to me!

Thanks
Chris

[Xgamer4]

I noted this in the survey, and true to my response, here's my deanonymization about presentation and what's possible.

I think you spent too much time focusing on "this is what I'd like the game to do", as opposed to "this is what can be done". The entire campaign focused on "you'll be able to do this", and "procedural generation that", and "here's the core gameloops!". I like following along on development more than most people outside this forum, but that wasn't really development... it's more something like a wish-list/high-level design doc, and nothing else. It didn't capture attention, and it lost some of its appeal once people started pointing out the problems in this thread.

I realize this is likely a consequence of not having development done very far, but something that would be interesting is different stories that come from it. One of our main concerns is superfluous/unnecessary procedural generation - sell us on it. One character traveled to discover his parents were an exiled Lord and Lady, and using the influence of his family ties he perpetuated a revolt to reclaim the throne. Another character discovered her parents were routine thieves in a large bandit group, but she managed to talk her way into the bandit group using their names. While there, she joined a campaign to steal the holy artifact not-Excalibur, which she pocketed for herself and used to claim the throne via divine right. etc, etc.

Just like Boatsmurdered has been one of the best marketing campaigns for Dwarf Fortress, get the skeleton in enough to create stories you can use to sell us on the game.

[Mephansteras]

I agree. There was a lot of focus on high level 'This is what I want to do' and some very specific information on the combat (which is indeed fun), but not a lot on the overall game experience.

Having more of that history and the stories possible in the game shown to people would help drum up interest. Procedural generation is nice, but as we all know it can leave you with a giant unfun mess if not done properly. Showing how the procedural stuff is going to be fun and interesting is an important draw. Otherwise it just sort of sits there being a buzzword that people are skeptical of.

[chrismdp]

I think you spent too much time focusing on "this is what I'd like the game to do", as opposed to "this is what can be done". The entire campaign focused on "you'll be able to do this", and "procedural generation that", and "here's the core gameloops!". I like following along on development more than most people outside this forum, but that wasn't really development... it's more something like a wish-list/high-level design doc, and nothing else. It didn't capture attention, and it lost some of its appeal once people started pointing out the problems in this thread.

Yes, I get that now. I need more "game" rather than just fluffy ideas. It's a bit of a catch-22 because I need money (dedicated time and team) to make the game what I want it to be.

So whilst I build out the core of Sol Trader further, I'll also be taking Ealdorlight closer to a prototype. It's going to have to be part-time work, but I'll do what I can 

[Xgamer4]

I thought about it a bit more after I posted that... here's why I didn't back. It's a mix of only having ideas and the price.

The vast majority was ideas and planning, and I don't tend to toss more than $10 towards videogame Kickstarters - especially when they're floating on just an idea . There's a little bit of wiggle room depending on the creator's pedigree and how much it seems like they know what they're talking about, but for reference, the only two projects to pull $20 out of me were Project: Eternity and Torment: Tides of Numenera.

I would have tossed $10 into the pot, were that an option that would have gotten me the game on release. I'm not sure how many others would have as well, though. But I almost never go as high as $20. Videogame campaigns just seem like far too much of a gamble, and $20 goes a long way towards a great game, immediately.

[Retropunch]

I'm sorry it didn't work out for you, and I'm glad that you could take some positive lessons out of it. I don't therefore want to come up with more armchair 'this is why it didn't work!' blather, but rather here are my views on the game.

• The setting was too generic - I'm sure there was a lot that was planned and would unfold, but 'super generic western fantasy' is hard to sell on it's own. It either needs a very strong story, a unique mechanic or be amazingly polished. With the greatest respect, it's never going to be AAA polished a la Witcher, so it has to have unique mechanics or story. That, or make the setting itself more interesting.
• Proc Gen is great, but as others have mentioned, it needs to be demonstrated really clearly in terms of what can happen in the game. ProcGen also can't be that unique mechanic, unless it's done to an incredible level of detail (ala URR or limit theory)
• Combat seems good, but there wasn't really enough to show it off. It's all very well showing us beating up a few bandits, but will be fighting monsters? If not, what does combat look like against a number of armoured opponents? etc.

I really, really want this to work out - I thought Sol Trader was good, and I can imagine the next game you produce will be great. I'm not sure what the answers are, but the need for a 'USP' - whilst annoying marketing speak - is always very real.

I would have tossed $10 into the pot, were that an option that would have gotten me the game on release. I'm not sure how many others would have as well, though. But I almost never go as high as $20. Videogame campaigns just seem like far too much of a gamble, and $20 goes a long way towards a great game, immediately.

I get your point, but prince points are always a very, very subjective issue. $/£20 for you might be peanuts to someone else, whereas to me $10 might be way too high to even consider. I don't think $20 is an unfair amount to ask for for a finished full length RPG, especially as Chris has released a game before successfully (different story if they're a complete unknown). There's a problem that the game is relatively niche, so each game that he gives away for much less than the break even point is potentially a big loss.

[Xgamer4]

I would have tossed $10 into the pot, were that an option that would have gotten me the game on release. I'm not sure how many others would have as well, though. But I almost never go as high as $20. Videogame campaigns just seem like far too much of a gamble, and $20 goes a long way towards a great game, immediately.

I get your point, but prince points are always a very, very subjective issue. $/£20 for you might be peanuts to someone else, whereas to me $10 might be way too high to even consider. I don't think $20 is an unfair amount to ask for for a finished full length RPG, especially as Chris has released a game before successfully (different story if they're a complete unknown). There's a problem that the game is relatively niche, so each game that he gives away for much less than the break even point is potentially a big loss.

Yeah, there's a reason I tried to separate why I personally didn't back from other types of problems.

The biggest thing is that, for me personally, I'm incredibly risk-averse to Kickstarter videogame campaigns, and my perceived time-value of money just doesn't work in their favor. You're right, $20 for a good, finished, game like Chris is talking about is a very reasonable, or maybe even cheap, ask. The problem is that I'm not tossing $20 for a good, finished game - I'm tossing $20 towards an idea that may or may not become a game (Chris's background speaks strongly in favor, general Kickstarter stats and personal experience speak against), that may or may not live up to the ideas presented, and I have to weight that against the fact that I could pull up Steam/GOG/etc right now and spend $20 on an amazing game I can play immediately, with none of the other concerns. It's just not a good bargain for me.

Writing me off as someone too cheap to be the audience is fine, and I wouldn't even complain. The overall question towards people like me was why I didn't toss my money into the pot, and that's largely why. I don't know how the general Kickstarter audience feels about this, either - it's possible I am the cheap one.

[Retropunch]

Writing me off as someone too cheap to be the audience is fine, and I wouldn't even complain. The overall question towards people like me was why I didn't toss my money into the pot, and that's largely why. I don't know how the general Kickstarter audience feels about this, either - it's possible I am the cheap one.

I certainly wouldn't write you off as cheap and I completely understand where you're coming from regarding GoG and Steam.

However, we've got to look at this from the standpoint of someone who wants to put money into a kickstarter - that's the primary market. If you start looking at it in direct market comparison to GoG/Steam, you'd come to the conclusion that no one would ever kickstart because there's an almost infinite number of games which are of an objectively higher value as they're already made.

So looking at it from the standpoint of someone who does want to kickstart, I don't think £20 is unreasonable (especially compared to other games of the same type). I guess the reason why I'm going on about this is that I don't want Chris to feel that the price point was the reason why it didn't work out as I really don't think it is.