Larian Studios Forums Divinity: Original Sin 2 Divinity - Original Sin 2 - General We have 1.5Mio, How to make a better stronghold?

@Lacrymas, you sound like you owe the absolute Truth... It seems... well let's say not so modest

From a personnal point of view, my first interest in a game is the scenario and the universe (which explains why I dislike LoL and TES...). People play vide games for different and personnal reasons and we cannot judge them.



I have not played PoE that much (mechanics were great but the writting... and that's my opinion) so I cannot say about the stronghold but come on man can't you accept that people are not always making games "according to the standards". Luckily standards change, and some "uncommon" games became a must have. Point is I agree with you on some arguments but please don't write like everyone HAVE TO agree with you

-.- You seem to think that this is my "subjective opinion" and that "everyone has their own opinion", but sadly it doesn't work that way. I didn't invent well-made games or good literature. There is nothing subjective in what I have said. There are objectively good examples of good narrative structure, logical progression, coherent plot etc. There is no subjectivity in logic. You can have subjective opinions about a lot of stuff, but this isn't one of them.

EDIT:



What are these standards that I can't accept people not adhering to?

sorry, it is not because "most of the people" think that way that everyone have to think that way. Wanna speak about literature? I have few friends who actually read all of Harry Potter books and did not like it at all.
Wanna speak about video games standards? I did not like Baldrur's gate nor I liked the Elder Scrolls.
About cinema? My ex did not like the Lord of the Rings.

I agree, there are codes and techniques about "how to make a blockbuster" but they change. so if you wanna speak about what is the best option to make money yeah you're right buddy... thing is I like less and less AAA games because they are just clones, big companies not wanting to take any risks and maximize the profits.
The funny thing is that those "general rules" are slowly killing them. People want new things, this is the reason why crowfunding is working so well. As does Steam

I am not going to lecture you but what killed the US cinema in the 60's was that it remained stuck in its rules and codes.

uuuum, like I said a lot of times already this isn't about personal preference which you seem to confuse with the objective qualities of art (which a coherent plot is part of). It also isn't about cynically produced shovelware by AAA developers. New things aren't generally made by having moronic, nonsensical plots that are more like a string of random events than an opus. There are exceptions of course - Finnegan's Wake or The Naked Lunch, but those are the exception not the rule. Their whole idea is to experiment with plot structures and language. They aren't made randomly with no thought whatsoever like mass produced clones for the lowest common denominator.

I think you misunderstand my intentions and where I'm coming from. Games aren't advanced or easily made enough to turn storytelling on its head yet. Since the medium is still very young we have a lot of way to go. There is some qualities that good RPGs have shown throughout the years that are actually thought-out and there is a reason they are given as examples and their method to be regarded as a staple. BG2 is an example of densely packed content, well designed encounters and well-balanced systems that complement each other, PS:T is an example of good writing, narrative pacing and interesting setting, KotOR 2 is an example of fantastic character development, very well thought-out narrative and the deconstruction of the manichean universe of Star Wars, I really could go on. They have been shown to work not only in practice, but the technical skills and philosophy behind them has been deemed to be in the right direction.

My point is that there are some things that you have to adhere to to be taken seriously. Nobody takes Bethesda's writing seriously because it can't even get the most basic elements of storytelling right. BiowEAre is in the same boat, though their problem is the illogical progression of the narrative. It's very hard trying to explain artistic theory and concepts like this, but suffice it to say I'm not trying to be a douche-bag, trust me. I might sound snobbish, but it isn't my intention, I just stem from my somewhat extensive knowledge of literature, art in general and, of course, video games. My intention is to have a debate, but it's very frustrating when people don't understand the basic premises of the discussion, but start accusing me of all kinds of stuff when I try to explain. Yes, my writing style is a bit blunt, but I don't mean to offend or insult anyone.

@Lacrymas:
- You have your opinion about what kind of games you like. Many things you say make sense. But your opinion is not the gold standard for game developers all over the world.

- What is a good game/movie/book and what not can only be seen after it is published. There were big hypes but the final product was bad. I found many games/movies by chance (means I saw it on TV or in a shop and I have never heard of it before) and they were very good. And there were others which were ignored when released but they became famous later.

- regarding some of your examples:
+ Baldurs Gate 2: I like this game but it has definitely not a well balanced system, as you call it. Take a Kensai->Mage or cleric/mage with improved alancrity, robe of vecna and some contingencies/spell triggers vs another class like a fighter. Almost every class has dump stats (does anybody need charisma?). The ultimate example is the sorcerer whose casting power is based on nothing but his level. D:OS was more balanced than any DnD game ever was.

+ I play KotoR2 at the moment and Kreia is my favourite character of all times.
But the game was released unfinished and you have to use a mod to see all content. I mean content made by the developers, not by fans.

+ PST is regarded by many RPG fans (including myself) as one of the best games ever. But combat was often terrible (and unbalanced because its DnD). There are many people who will never play it bacause they do not like reading tons of text.

No game ever made was perfect and no one ever will be. I am sure that D:OS2 will be a good game. But I am also sure that you will find some things that could have been made better. And even if the game was perfect for you, there will be lots of people who will complain about all kinds of things.

You misunderstand.

First - I said they are well regarded for *specific* things, not the whole package. By well-balanced systems I mean combat, exploration and itemization complement each other. NOT combat/build balance. I just gave examples from the video game medium, but everything I say is also taken from art in general.

Second - we already have good examples of movies/games/books to examine and analyze, and making mistakes because we don't learn from other, better examples, or pieces which AREN'T done right is backwards. What you or I think of them has no bearing whatsoever on their intrinsic value. A Beethoven sonata is not diminished by you not liking it.

Third - *I* don't regard them as anything. What constitutes good art is determined by consensus of informed in all aspects of it people and is backed by arguments based on philosophy, technical skill, context and previous art. It isn't by personal preference or narcissistic leanings. Just like science is taken into consideration and circulation only after peer reviews, which you, being a scientist, should know. Subjectivity has *nothing* to do with either.

Well you can't really say you're trying to have an objective discussion and claim an obviously subjective opinion as fact, but maybe I missed something, and I'm curious as why you'd say Bethesda's games aren't RPGs?

I consider the Elder Scrolls to be the ultimate, real Role Playing Games around. One of the very few games that let you be what you want to be in a virtual world - I'd agree that they lack choices and consequences, although Skyrim ( and FO3 before that ) has been working to counter this.
This is also why I consider housing a critical element of the Elder Scroll games - you can use them, you can ignore them, it boils down to how you want to RolePlay you character. RPGs, even cRPGs, aren't all about fighting and adventuring, and it's nice to chill once in a while, get your stuff together, repair it, improve it, populate your shelves, cloth your dummies, well, take a break. And it really makes more sense for a rich Daedra-armor-wearing adventurer, savior of city X, to have a large house in said city rather than having to resort to sleeping under bridges.
This is however down to how I perceive cRPGs, and RPGs. Let's be a bit blunt and say there are two ways of playing a RPG :
- Spreadsheet and dices with little place to imagination, where things are ruled by the Natural 20 ( have a look at http://tabletitans.com/ , stories from tabletop RPG players, are almost always dear remembrance of natural 20 and dice-determined victories ( or failures )).1
- Roleplaying and discussion, where outcomes are determined by talking, decisions, argumentation, and as little dice-casting as possible.

Now, before you say I'm off-topic, my point is that there are at least two types of players who do not share the same expectations and therefore the same views on thing. I love the ES games, I love what they did with housing, even if doesn't have any meaningful impact on the gameplay and content of the game. I make it meaningful because of the way I play. This is, I believe, called Emergent Gameplay - taking elements of the game and making use of them in a way that is meaningful and relevant as well as problem-solving.
Now, I perfectly understand that someone playing a cRPG ( or RPG ) mostly for monster slaying would find such a housing system perfectly useless and irrelevant. Not the way they play. They'd rather have it provide at least combat bonus, wield some strategic importance, something that would make the rest of the game experience better at the very least.
And, yes, PoE stronghold clearly succeeded in being neither and being completely, utterly useless, pointless and boring

HOWEVER

DOS2 would clearly NOT benefit from a housing system ala Skyrim. I know, I didn't play DOS2, but DOS1 would already not have benefited from this, and I don't expect a game telling the stories of a few hunted people to be able to add a meaningful The Sims kind of housing. In a very story-driven kind of game, housing would have to integrate fully, at least. It would even be best if it offered options and, given the nature of the Hall of Echoes, conflicts. After all, you're probably going to meet a few people you may have slightly murdered !

Larian had a good thing going on in Divinity 2 and we can only hope they'll iterate from there, that's for sure.

Just a last, slightly off topic thing : sadly, today's art isn't backed anymore by most of what you say. More and more the charisma of the artist and their ability to self promote are the keys to a piece of art being recognized as masterpiece / good art. Same goes with videogames, but it's actually worse : a "good" game doesn't need to be good if you have enough money to push it forward and get yourself some good critics. Of course, if the game is actually very bad, the backlash will be violent. Or will it ? Blizzard latest games ( starcraft 2, hearthstone, Diablo3 ... ) are quite bad, but they are a huge success.
[/offtopic]

We need clear distinction between RPGs and hiking simulators aka TES. For that we need to define what an RPG is, hopefully I don't need to go into much detail because TES (especially Oblivion and Skyrim) don't even fit the basics. They have the superfluous elements, like character creation and items, but they don't have the core. RPGs have three distinct features -

1. Reactive world - this is often shortened to C&C, I kinda dislike that, but whatever. This basically means that the world reacts naturally to your actions and you exist in it. Fallout 1 and 2 did a great job with this. Telling random strangers where your vault is hidden in the mountains which has valuable pre-war tech is obviously a stupid idea and bandits start raiding it soon after. This is good. Make me paranoid that my choices will have real, logical consequences. The game world will possess mechanics that recognise and respond to your character's intrinsic qualities, such as an ability or inability to use certain items, or dialogue options based around your character's intelligence (for example). Multiple solutions to problems are expected. This also means that a coherent, consistent world is preferable, because it allows your character to be a part of it and interact with it, without 4th wall breaking. *Roleplaying* basically, but done right.

It isn't the Mass Effect kind of reactivity where a choice affects something COMPLETELY unrelated to that choice. Like the loyalty missions in 2 affecting whether someone will die in the suicide mission. This isn't about making a reactive and immersive world and it's about sticking it in the back-of-the-box blurb. Basically marketing and faux-replayability.

2. Menu-driven combat - auto-attack, selecting abilities from the interface, your character's stats and skills are way more important than your personal motor skills. This is what people mean by "character progression" basically. It also means that you aren't playing a mere avatar of yourself, but a completely separate entity. This comes directly from pen and paper gaming and translated well into video games because of the quick calculation of computers. Anything that isn't menu-driven and isn't character-centric is the action genre. That's why Diablo 2 is an ARPG and not a straight up RPG.

3. Mostly party-based. This is a tough one to sell, I know, but bear with me. I can't think of a single RPG which has the above-mentioned points but isn't party-based. Even NWN had at least 1 slot for a party member. Those that aren't are MMOs (even though they, too, are party-based to some extent) and they have wildly different logic and systems than single-player RPGs. It, too, is a borrowed concept from pen and paper gaming. Party members not only serve the plot, but also contrast or complement your character with their personalities and abilities. This is the most wobbly point, I admit, but 3 sounds like a well rounded number :p

Those 3 points are historically what is considered a single-player RPG. VTMB is an ARPG, leaning heavily on the RPG btw. You might have noticed that the TES games, especially post-Morrowind (but it too) have none of these qualities. Skyrim is also a game of excess and shallowness. It promises a vast open world, but in the end it turns out it has the breadth of the ocean, but the depth of a puddle. It doesn't react to anything (killing the last boss, but the Companions NPCs are asking who you are, come on!) , it doesn't have C&C , level scaling basically negates any kind of character progression etc. Bethesda also aren't aware what purpose RPG mechanics are supposed to have. Like I mentioned in the second point, in an RPG you aren't playing as an avatar of yourself, you are playing as a completely separate entity. That means that interactions with the game world are governed by HIS/HER/THEIR skills, HIS/HER/THEIR qualities, HIS/HER/THEIR abilities, not the player's. Thus, any RPG system will possess mechanics that separate your character's abilities from yours, such as the STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA of Dungeons & Dragons, or Fallout's S.P.E.C.I.A.L. system.

Don't get me started on doing whatever you want, no matter the logic behind it. A game in which you can do anything, focuses on nothing. This pretty much covers it, but I can go way deeper than that if need be, but I think you get the point.



The natural 20 is just a representation of your attempt at something, it was never perfect, but it was service-able. It also prevented the game from being too stale and rigid, and promoted more creative solutions after a failure.



Emergent Gameplay is mostly for sandboxes and sandbox mmos (mainly EVE online). In a single-player RPG hand-crafted content is preferable, mostly because of that consistency and reactivity point. You also can't design for Emergent Gameplay, you can only give your players deep mechanics and let them go wild.



Yeap.

I agree with everything after that.



That only happens if you mistake popularity and commercial success with quality. 20th century art that is relevant is still backed by the things I said. Don't get me started on Blizzard's recent abortions.

/phew

- We can discuss for eternities what a RPG is and what not. Here is a link to gamasutra. Summary: An RPG is a game where the result of an action is more dependent on character stats than on player skills. By player skills I mean things like fast reaction and good aiming. The player must know game rules and something about tactics/strategy.

- The fact that Lacrymas like Beethoven and I like techno and heavy metal more tells us nothing about Beethoven. This is just our personal taste.

- Game companies are companies. Their goal is to make money. Lets assume that all Blizzard games are bad (just an example). Why should they care as long as they sell millions of copies?

- Lacrymas, your reference to peer review is useless. Science is about facts. Games are about fun. Games do not need to be true or realistic, they only need enough consistency so they do not break immersion. For example, if you have housing in a game, would you want to lock or unlock the door every time you leave or enter your house, maybe find the key first in your inventory?
There are games that do not care at all about realism or consistency but they are fun to play (Sam and Max hit the road for example. Nothing makes sense there but it was lots of fun.). But I think that D:OS2 should have a good amount of internal consistency.

- Of course one should look at the games/movies/books that already exist, analyze what was good and bad and how some of these things can be integrated (or taken out) of the games/movies/books that are developed now. That is what we are doing here all the time in case nobody noticed.

back to topic:
- good examples for stronghold:
+ NWN2: It has an important role in the game, it is well integrated in the main story, you can have lots of interactions with it, it gives you significant rewards (items, quests, easier battle to defend it)
+ Some people mentioned Divinity2, but I have not played it

- medium examples:
+ D:OS1: The main story is revealed here. But you unlock one room after the other more or less automatically and each new room is filled with one person (usually a shop). This make the place feel very empty. It would be nice if there are more people in one room and you can have interesting interactions with those chars. In the hall of echoes you could meet important people of the past or people that have killed in this game before (some of them by you). Some of them may give you a quest because they have some unfinished buisiness before they can be reborn. Or they seek vangeance because you killed them. Or it is a famous crafter who can make special items that you cannot get in any shop.

- bad examples
+ PoE: It is an obvious money sink and a boring mini game that produces random events.

No, we actually can't, because it's already discussed and pinpointed. The same way a waltz is not a sonata and the same way an RTS is not an FPS, an action sandbox is not an RPG. Simple.



I'm so tired of repeating myself. I'm just using Beethoven as an example to get my point across that personal taste doesn't diminish or enrich Beethoven (or ANY GOOD art). This has nothing to do with what I like or don't like.



They don't care, that's the problem. I can discuss the economic and philosophical ramifications of companies that only exist to make money all day, but without wanting to spark a flame war between rival schools of capitalism I'll just say that there is a difference between companies who make money to make games (Larian) and companies who make games to make money (AAA industry). Gamers who like quality games can tell the difference between painstakingly-crafted masterpieces and cynically produced shovelware thrown into the trough to be gobbled up, trust me.



Art is about facts as well, don't delude yourself. Art is also peer reviewed and that is how it's deemed important or average. Games aren't ABOUT fun, they are ABOUT a lot of different things. Horror games can in no way be called "fun" in that sense of the word. And before you misunderstand me again, that doesn't mean the horror genre is bad, I actually love it. It's about other stuff that isn't "fun". Horror is, again, just an example, there are a lot more. There is also a difference between WELL-MADE games where consistency is one of the main reasons for it. This has nothing to do with realism. It needs to be consistent in its world, whatever that world may be. Its internal logic shouldn't be cracked and abused because it's easier this way. Warhammer 40k is in no way realistic but it REVELS in its ultra-violence and grimdark-ness, it doesn't start throwing clowns and comedic elements. A world has to have CONSISTENCY IN ITS OWN INTERNAL LOGIC.



I mentioned that because someone here said that we'll "discuss it after it's released" which is absurd. NOT making the same mistakes is mostly what progress is about.



NWN 2 is actually the only semi-decently made stronghold. And that's where the debate about the stronghold came from initially. Because a lot of people hated that such important content is gated behind it. We are stuck with a stronghold now, so that doesn't really matter. We simply don't have a better-made stronghold to compare he one in NWN2 to. It wasn't amazing and there's heaps that can be improved. The most glaring flaws came from the engine though, it was just clunky to control. Scouring the map for ore was a bit cheap and they can be made into quests, though that's kinda hard.

Nobody said game development is easy, though. I liked how you recruited lieutenants and they had their own personal recruitment quests (Light of Heavens). Companions were a bit neutral about the stronghold though and their involvement with it could be more. I see (well made) companions as exceptionally skilled and/or intelligent individuals who are far above the average person, so their input and help is always appreciated. I also liked the choices between what structure you wanted to build.

The way you sent patrols around was a bit hands-off and pointless, it also wasn't very clear if they were actually doing anything. That could be improved significantly, though at least it gave you a sense that you have armies at your command.

The most important aspect and far above anything else is that it made sense in the context and story of the game, it wasn't handed to you because you were such a special little snowflake, but you had to work for it. The content itself can individually be made poorly or great, but if it doesn't make sense everything falls apart, no matter the content.



It was simply menu navigation in a pretty dress. It KINDA made sense in the story however, so I'll let it slide. It ISN'T an example of a well-made stronghold mechanic though.


It was also forced into the story. It was evident it was put in there because it was a stretch goal so they had to make up something that can tie it to the story. It wasn't very elegant at the best of times, it was empty, it had a somewhat poorly designed layout, it also felt a little pointless.



It wasn't even a money sink because you were swimming in cash anyway. There is ONE thing that is even worse, though. You couldn't ignore it. No matter your refusal to build anything, bandits and undead still attacked and if you auto-resolved it you lost gold. It wasn't that much gold, but it continued to pester you constantly throughout the game about invasions. It was a debacle and I hope it is buried and forgotten about.

Other examples include BG2 - kinda pointless and it only served to bloat the already huge amount of content in that game. It was disconnected from anything else and felt tacked on. Bad example. I think that's about it really. Well, there is the one from Might and Magic, but I don't knwo anything about it because I haven't played it. Housing from MMOs aren't good examples because the logic there is different.

well well don't really sound like this, as for me, I am more into cinema and video games than literature (I only read fantasy and sci-fi). Please, please, be my guest state clearly your so-called basics



come on, art can hardly be "rationalised". Neuroscience has started to work only few years ago about brain perception. Of course there are "rules" as I stated before but, and you said it yourself, rules evolved based on some games that pushed the limits and based on the technological evolution. One cannot define a general rule set in the stone !
so art IS subjective, we all have our own opinion about art.



so you're saying Fable is NOT a RPG... well well
and calling TES "hiking simulator" seriously dude, this is a personnal opinion, most of today's RPGs are open worlds... it is "almost" a standard for today's RPGs. Even for Larian's games, I mean have a look at the forum, people asked if they are open worlds, if there will be some area where we cannot go back later in the game and so on so on...

Last but not least, indeed if you really want to go back to the core definition of an RPG, we have to consider the paper old fashion RPGs which can be splited in many "kind" but the two main kind will be the RP oriented ones (Call of Cthulhu) based on scenarios where the narration is really important and the Game oriented ones (D&D) where the mecanics are somehow more important than the scenario.

The first computer RPGs where text based RPGs but this was only du to the limitation of the computers. some kind of "you are the hero" books but then it evolved. The first graphical RPG's were based on the RPG system and definitely not on the scenario, they were what we call "door, monster, loot" (which will become the Rogue-like system). Ever since the media has evolved and so has the RPG. We cannot today make a clear and unique definition of the RPG, every publisher/gamer/website has its own. Of course we will find recurrent elements but definitions will be different.

Already did a few posts ago.



Why do you think Beethoven, Michelangelo, Sartre, Nietzsche, Voltaire, Kafka etc etc are considered influential and geniuses? It wasn't a single person's subjective opinion, let me tell you.



Even the wikipedia article for Fable states that it's an Arpg, though I consider that an oxymoron. So, yeah it isn't an RPG. Open world =\= Sandbox with no structure. And no, I don't get my "opinions" from wikipedia, I'm just saying that *even* wikipedia states that it isn't.



We are talking about the specific video game genre Role-playing Game, which has a clear distinction and definition. It's a stupid and confusing name, but that's how it is.

Lacrymas, discussing with you can be very frustrating.
Lets just say we agree to disagree.

My final words for today:
I made an importent mistake. In science you have to define things before you discuss about them. The following definitions are my personal point of view and I do not care if some so called experts agree to them. (Most likely they do not. )

-computer role playing game: A cRPG is a computer program that is about stat based world interaction. Usually it does have some kind of combat. There are one or more player characters. All of them have a certain set of stats. The player gives orders to his char. If the action is successful and what is the exact result is defined by the char stats, not by the player. (Of course, the player usually creates his char and gives him equipment).

-art: Art is a consensus between the artist and the audience. This means if somebody does something and says it is art and many people who perceive it do also think that this is art, THEN IT IS ART. I do not care how some so called experts decide that some paint on a piece of paper is worth some millions while another piece of paint on another piece of paper is junk.

- I do not have an own definition of stronghold. If I enter it at wikipedia, it redirects to fortification.

A bit of oversimplification, but yes essentially this. TES doesn't fit this bill.



Oh, getting into a discussion about what art is is meaningless. I'm not trying to define art, I'm trying to explain how and why some art is considered important and good, while other art isn't. It isn't because some random dude proclaimed it to be important.



It's only an arbitrary designation for what the story deems as "your place". Like Dr. Koln said it can be pretty much anything, from a rundown shack in the middle of nowhere to a sprawling mansion to a fortified keep.

Back after a hard and way too long day work !

Okay, I get your point about [c]RPGs.
Obviously, I'm annoyed by the definition pointed by Madscientist, as I see resolving everything with dices a strong obstacle to actually playing a role, which is why I much prefer a story-driven game of Vampire / Cthulu, where you actually have to play a role rather than let dices do the job. Or well, you can try attacking a werewolf with a Malkav bookworm, but you don't need the dice to know this is gonna end badly for you
Let's just say there are "role-playing" games and cRPG. Yes, I know RPG means just that. As Lacrymas said, it's a stupid and confusing name in the first place.

As for art, it's somehow like History. There is the saying that goes, "History is written by the victor".
Art is kinda the same, except art is written by rich and powerful sponsors. Art is deeply subjective : it depends on exposure, the era, relationships, and (fortunately), talent. It's not a coincidence art form like Impressionism was shuned upon for a long time before finally rising to fame. Were you the favorite of a king or a prot馮 of an influent noble family, chances are your name will stay.
In the long run, what will stay for the centuries to come is what people decided was worth it, either by taste or by money. The subjectivity of today can be the objectivity of tomorrow. What was universally seen as horrible yesterday may have become the masterpiece of today. Art evolves, tastes too, but there are, ultimately, no defined rule to what will stick, what will go.

It's a good thing people are voicing what they expect from the Hall of Echoes, now that we will have it. I hope we will know more about it and what the plans are sometimes during the dev process, and I actually asked a question on this at the reddit AMA ( waiting for a potential answer :p ).

His definition is a bit oversimplified, like I said. I covered it in somewhat more detail. The stats are simply a representation of your character. You can build a lot of different characters with a stat system, but you can only ever build one (you) in an action sandbox like TES. The difference being that in TES you play an avatar of yourself that can do everything if you so wish, while in Fallout you can only do the things your character is able to do given his stats/skills/perks/abilities. That doesn't mean that every dialogue is chosen by the dice :p

We play a "role" in every game imaginable and that's why "RPG" is a confusing and utterly bizarre name, but it has stuck over the years and we conceptualize "RPG" as the things I described.

The whole art debate was my attempt to explain that there is some objective qualities that art exhibits that aren't bound to subjective opinions. Then trying to explain what objectivity in art is. It's a confusing mess and I know that many people can't understand me when I try to explain such things, so It's ok.

Share the answers that you get about your Hall of Echoes question, they should prove interesting :p

Still no answer, I think I'm going to ragequit and drop my pledge to 0 !

... Wait no.

Someone should ask about the Talents! Since I don't have a reddit "profile" and most of the questions are somewhat random someone should ask them about the talents! It's also quite hard to navigate reddit in general and the constant questions aren't helping.

EDIT: Nvm, I did it myself.

@Dr. Koln did you get an answer? ;d

Not really ; Jeff-norD told me they were still discussing it too.



I guess my "trap" of asking what they thought was good or bad examples of housing/stronghold systems in other videogame was detected, hehe.

I'll leave the question open regardless ; Raze and Jeff read the forums so they should feel free to say more of what they'd expect to find in a good stronghold.

edit : the question as I wrote it

Ha, love the way you asked it. I asked about talents and perks, and random loot. They are still discussing talents and perks. On the random loot they said they are going to try to have a mix of random and hand-placed loot (as far as I understood).

So, stronghold. It's good that they are discussing it and they've already showed that they listen to the players and are willing to fix issues, so I'm hopeful.