Larian Studios

Wishlist

Posted By: Ubereil

Wishlist - 04/12/06 06:20 PM

Lynn told us to say what we wanted in Larians next RPG, so here we go:

I want it to be Ps:T 2!

I want a good and interesting story, lots of interesting quests with multiple sollutions where some are peacefull and interesting NPCs (not necesarily partyrelated). That's pretty much it .

Übereil
Posted By: MysterD

Re: Wishlist - 04/12/06 09:58 PM

Quote:

Lynn told us to say what we wanted in Larians next RPG, so here we go:

I want it to be Ps:T 2!



I don't need another PS:T. PS:T was one of the best RPG's ever, but I'd like for it to have some of the elements that made that game great -- among some other things.

Quote:

I want a good and interesting story



Sounds good.

Quote:

lots of interesting quests with multiple sollutions where some are peacefull and interesting NPCs (not necesarily partyrelated).



Sounds good.

Quote:

That's pretty much it .

Übereil



Wow, not asking for much, eh?

Okay, I got a wish list for this thing.

MysterD's "Next Larian RPG" Wish List

--NO STARFORCE
Yeah, find some other non-intrusive copyright protection, please.

--SDK
Retail Box comes w/ a good SDK, so modders can go mod-happy and build their own content; like NWN1 and NWN2 are currently benefiting from.

--Great story
I want a great, unique storyline here.

--NPC Interaction
Lots of NPC interaction, especially if we can have a party....

--Multiple Solutions/Pathways to Quests and the Main Quest Iteself
Multiple solutions to main quests, side quests, and to the main quest's ending a la NWN2 or PS:T, where some are good, evil, neutral, and even peaceful non-combat solutions.

--Game Can Still Continue After Finishing The Main Quest
After we finish the main quest, it'd be nice if we can keep playing in the same game world; especially if there's some quests I'd like to finish or actually do, once I finish the main quest

Posted By: Elliot_Kane

Re: Wishlist - 04/12/06 10:00 PM

I prefer party based RPGs, but regardless I'd like the kind of dialogue options that allow you to create a personality for your character (As with PS:T) and for the dialogue choices you make to have real repercussions within the story.

A compelling story always beats an excuse to run around hitting things.

Romance possibilities are always good. Unless they are like Baldur's Gate 2, where it's a choice of bad, really bad, or worse

In general, the closer to the way PS:T works any RPG gets, the more I like it in terms of story, characterisation & dialogue options.

Diablo 2 is still the gold standard for single character combat and character power-ups, though. I know it's old now, but in terms of balancing the character types and overall challenge (Hard but fair) it has yet to be equalled, let alone bettered.

And definitely not turn based. At all. Ever. (Sorry Alrik )

Edit:I like these suggestions of D's too:

Quote:

--Multiple Solutions/Pathways to Quests and the Main Quest Iteself
Multiple solutions to main quests, side quests, and to the main quest's ending a la NWN2 or PS:T, where some are good, evil, neutral, and even peaceful non-combat solutions.

--Game Can Still Continue After Finishing The Main Quest
After we finish the main quest, it'd be nice if we can keep playing in the same game world; especially if there's some quests I'd like to finish or actually do, once I finish the main quest






Posted By: Morbo

Re: Wishlist - 04/12/06 10:05 PM

An open world!! No limitations on geography (like the act system in )

For the rest I thrust the geniuses at larian.


ps: I thrust Larian, not the publishers with their "let's change the name" attitude.
Posted By: AlrikFassbauer

Re: Wishlist - 04/12/06 10:33 PM

I just guess Larian has learned their lessen.

Plus the lesson with publishers not producing the game anymore after a few sold quantities (like Ubisoft did) or using newly established publishers that go out of business instead of selling the game.

I just guess Larian just made it exactly the other way round this time : Making the publishers drool over the game and THEN dictate what they (Larian) want to ! *insert manical laughter here*


Posted By: Lurker

Re: Wishlist - 04/12/06 10:55 PM

It would be nice if in addition to an original storyline (not "an old evil has risen again, we need to destroy it in order to save the world") and quests with multiple solutions where your choices really have an impact on the world, you could focus on some of the strengths that made fun to play:

  • freedom of action - as long as you're up to the challenge, you are free to go almost anywhere and to do most quests in any order you like
  • large choice of skills and spells to choose from, so you can really customize your character and play a warrior who still knows a few spells or a mage with a few thief skills
  • random treasure and items stats for an increased replayability - and each game you play is unique
  • some items you can gather and combine - whether it's alchemy again or some simple crafting system

I'd also welcome a few adventure-type puzzles here and there. And if you include a hint system that points you along quests, please don't forget the option to turn it off. I don't want the game to take me by the hand and do all the thinking for me.
Posted By: Ghostboy

Re: Wishlist - 04/12/06 11:20 PM

If it would be something like Ultima 7 in 3D, I would be very pleased!!!
Posted By: LewsTherinKinslayer13

Re: Wishlist - 05/12/06 02:07 AM

Be Able to Own Houses, up to like a castle if you are really rich. I always wanted one of the manors in verdistis =/ I just took over the thieves guild eventually.

Be able to play after beating game.

Very Big Open World, no acts, etc.

Good story.

Lot's of NPCS. Different ways to do things, lot's of side quests, etc.

Being able to be good or bad to solve things, you know. peaceful or attacking, etc.

Scorpion Traps to kill everything. :P

Rivellon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Whores. ( sorry, have to say it. I want them in the game again )

Castles.

Varied Geography, like in D1.

Reminds me of D1, *sigh* Im going to go play it again.
Posted By: Elliot_Kane

Re: Wishlist - 05/12/06 03:01 AM

Ah! Lews reminded me! Absolutely NO totally unbalanced Scorpion Traps or other serious game breakers! I hated those things...
Posted By: janggut

Re: Wishlist - 05/12/06 06:50 AM

i would like the new RPG to be slightly similar to the old Divine in the sense that the world is cut up according to regions, not acts nor story arcs.

also i would like the new RPG to retain teleporter portals with SDK in mind (thanks to D for the idea) so when players create new modules, these modules can be used to expand the game (to go there, simply choose it in the list of teleporter destination). of course, this should be available after completing the original campaign & such, in order not to spoil the game by modules that can serve as cheats.

a whole lot more NPCs will be wonderful too, however too many with more or less the same personalities (generic) would not make it any better. probably instead of more NPCs, give the NPCs more depth & not just a one-quest-giver. we can inter-relate quests & NPCs so we get to visit the same ones again & again as well as discover (or re-discover) the kind of personalities they have.

in the same vein as what i mentioned of NPCs (more depth & inter-relationships), instead of one big whole world with more or less the same stuff, it can be a small tight world where the quest can be to find the way out of that small world, which sequels of the game can expand the world bit by bit.

for example, the first one can be restricted to say Rivellon which a village boy or girl aspires to be (fill in job description) & also learnt from travellers & merchants & whatever that the world is bigger than just Rivellon. so in a way, the game can be about our characters growing up to be (or trying to) what he or she wants to be.

of course, this sounds a lot like the premise of Fable. however Larian's new game can be a whole lot better in the sense that in can be more than just pure combat to progress.

i have more ideas here for the new game but to sum it all up, i would like it to be as how DD was to me when i first played it - not as just a game, not as just one of the best RPGs, but as one of the most memorable gaming experience.

this is what i hope & expect of the Larians. because i know they can.
Posted By: Draghermosran

Re: Wishlist - 05/12/06 08:24 AM

- Event driven storyline, not just quest unlocking. For example: A city of warrriors you can't enter unless you've proven yourself a worthy warrior (by defeating x members of that gang), but If you defeated two times as much of that gang before going to the city, "You're that guy that messed up those gang members aren't you, I've heard about you, please enter".

- no questionmarks indicating quest givers, they rather wave at you our whisper while you pass by. You can learn about quests by the chatter of villagers: "have you heard? the sherrif is looking for mercanaries to put an end to those redscarfs raiding. Yes I did, but no-one seems to be brave enough to face those rats, I would, if my farm wouldn't need my constant attention"

- Alchemy and Crafting are not predefined items, giving the player plenty options to expiriment and "This doesn't look..." followed a bang and health loss depending on the amounts used. SO be carefull not to poison or blow yourself. Or crafting a sword that drains your mana not that of your foe.

- Respawning of npc's and monsters but slowly, if you kill 100 orcs, a day later their won't be another 100 orcs but maybe 10 scouts.

- no socketed items, gems.. but materials for blacksmithing, charming and alchemy applications..

- big world, loads of quests, good and great storyline, lore..
Posted By: paladin

Re: Wishlist - 05/12/06 10:49 AM

Like everyone say's. Rivellon rocks so we'd prefer the land to stay in the game with some new parts and new cities. And rivellon has to be a lot bigger then in

That the Ranaar would come to rivellon to aid the people there.

Obviously new spells and skills and new kind of weapons if possible, etc.

Maybe something like two camps: good and evil and that you can choose wich one to join. just a possibility of course.


GOOD LUCK!!!


Posted By: Ubereil

Re: Wishlist - 05/12/06 11:27 AM

D, if it's so very little to ask for, how come so few games have managed to pull it off?

I forgot loads of characterinteraction! And of course, avoid beta in the box, I want a WORKING game.

Übereil
Posted By: Myrthos

Re: Wishlist - 05/12/06 12:36 PM

I would like a game that can be finished in 30-40 hours and is well balanced for that period of time. I don't want a gazillion of features that most likely break a lot of stuff as it is next to impossible to test all possible combinations of these features.

I would like a game that can be modded to bring all those nice-to-have features to those who are interested in them.
I would like a game that, in the event it can't be modded, does not try to implement all those nice-to-have features and just stick to the ones that improve gameplay without actually breaking it.
Posted By: Foetsy

Re: Wishlist - 05/12/06 01:34 PM

err, what do u know about multiplayer?
Posted By: TheDivine

Re: Wishlist - 05/12/06 01:47 PM

This made my post count come off 666

There is so much to want but ill guess we'll have to trust Larian on their experience and iedeas for the most. Guess they'll know we want another game like DD and not BD (no chapters). They know we want the really great interaction with objects again (at least i want that). Perhaps make some of the skills like alchemy a bit more complicated.

But overall 1 thing is most important to me. The world must be alive. Must suck you in and dont let you go. A world that lets you take your own path and decisions and gives you the feeling what you do has use. (imo Gothic 3 did this rather well too)

Another thing what would be nice is friendly creatures too, perhaps some interactive. Not just slaughter all you see (only if you choose to) but forest creatures and stuff must not be all agressive. Perhaps some if you are in their territory. Some predators, searching for you and killing other creatures. Some creatures not agressive at all only if you seriously threat em.

Another very important thing to me is variety of creatures. Dark Messiah of Might and Magic for example is a rather good game if you ask me. One of the lamest things is that there are only a variety of like 10 different creatures. I really hope "the next RPG" will feature a lot and i mean a lot of different creatures. Perhaps some not so important to the game but just to keep the world alive. Birds and Bunnies and Butterflies or whatever. Those lil details make a game good for me.

I hope Larian will consider these most important points for me. If some of you disagree, please say so, I'd like to hear other side of the things too
Posted By: doctor_kaz

Re: Wishlist - 05/12/06 02:00 PM

My wish list:

1. Hand-crafted world with more unique areas to explore and less repetitive maze-like environments that are composed of 1000 different iterations of the same mundane tileset.

2. A rewarding role-playing system that makes you interested every time that you gain a level. I think that 1 did a pretty good job with this.

3. Interesting story where you play an important part in the game world. Divine Divinity did such an excellent job here.

4. Seamless world with as few loading screens as possible, and with most of the world accessible to you right off the bat. Divine Divinity did a great job of this but I was really disappointed in Beyond Divinity here.

5. A brand spanking new epic soundtrack by the same guy who did the first two games.
Posted By: Weonlyliveonce

Re: Wishlist - 05/12/06 02:01 PM

what it should have:
- the kind of character you choose should have a bigger impact on the game
- your actions should have SOME impact on the outcome of the game
- more interesting guilds, with a lot more side quests
- a large variety of weapons and spells - especially daggers - and do not overpower the swords again like in
- friendly orcs and ranaar, with a deeper look in their culture as well
- leave more freedom for the hero to create objects(weapons, armor, jewels, spells, potions, and buildings perhaps)
Posted By: Viper

Re: Wishlist - 05/12/06 02:03 PM

#1 on my wishlist: bugfree
#2 in stores by this christmas

I'll have to think about the other points
Posted By: BladeRN

Re: Wishlist - 05/12/06 03:12 PM

In recent RPG-s there was a problem with the economy (gold, money, etc.). Either you had no gold at all or it was plenty and cannot buy with it anything.
I was thinking about a new kind of economy. You can loot of course, but you needn't always buy something, you can lend it for example, if you have not enough gold. This way you can get a wonderful 12+ super-duper leach sword, for 100 gold a week. If you run out of money, you have to hand it back, but if you loot more than that/week you can keep it.
Another solution is if you have too much gold in your purse, maybe the prices can follow it, or even better if you can spend it on many other ways than weapons, spells and potions. For example you can go to a village where everybody hate you, so you spend 1000 gold on a two days feast and drinking for the whole village and everybody will love you.
Posted By: AlrikFassbauer

Re: Wishlist - 05/12/06 05:40 PM

In Antwort auf:

In recent RPG-s there was a problem with the economy (gold, money, etc.). Either you had no gold at all or it was plenty and cannot buy with it anything.




I think it was Wazzz who already wrote that they had a "solution" for that.

Posted By: Draghermosran

Re: Wishlist - 05/12/06 05:44 PM

I like mmorpg's well I like the basic idea altho none of them have really met my expectations of what a mmorpg should be.

Now I don't wish DD2 to be mmorpg, would be cool tho but to my experience the mmo in mmorpg make it rpg, this works great without decent storyline, repetetive quests, no-one wondering how ridiculous it really is that 234343 poeple before you killed mr badguys leader.

Other than that, mmorpg's require servers, security, gm's etc etc, lots of work Larian can't spend in original content.

Tho, to get to my point a simple co-op mode would be great, accompagnied with a little friends client-server system. A la Diablo II. A more worked out meeting place "say, all inn's act as some cross-client meeting place" would be nice, to have some roleplaying interaction with strangers. But this might not be feaseble in a simple manner.

and ofcourse modability.
Posted By: galadriel

Re: Wishlist - 05/12/06 07:33 PM

Als antwoord op:

#1 on my wishlist: bugfree
#2 in stores by this christmas

I'll have to think about the other points



Agree with you Viper. As far as my wish list goes for games that is
Posted By: phrap_kinkou

Re: Wishlist - 05/12/06 08:45 PM

I want to be free ... free to fight or no ... free to run, explore or travel in a wide world ...

free to flee the combat or of tightening ambushes

free to use elves or dwarves expertise to improve or imagine powerful and varied weapons

free to become a demon or a saint in order to live the adventure in another way
Posted By: Plumo

Re: Wishlist - 05/12/06 09:44 PM

I want a village-hideout for you character to rest and re equip.
something cosy and defendable :

cfr. Sherwood forest ( robin hood)
Posted By: lepel

Re: Wishlist - 05/12/06 11:55 PM

Im not sure how you are planning to do the fighting
but Im dreaming for a long time about a RPG where we can assign our own combos to our mousebuttons
everyone could have his own unique fighting style and change it so it feels natural for every player
and as your level increases you unlock different combos/skills to use with those combos
because in my opinion most RPGs are just about clicking on your enemys and you need no skill (often just a high lvl, or a good armor)
and that is getting old and boring to me because I played tons of RPGs just like that.
but please at least let us use combos and not always the same attack over and over and over and over again

(and an optional online arena could be fun, and could be a reason to keep playing the game once you did (most of) the quests, or just want a change)
it could also be a way to show that unique fighting style you have developped to your friends, offcourse i dont expect this to be a huge part of the game
but it should be doable to make a small sized arena where you could show your friends your character


and if you choose not to implement this idea (the first one, the second idea was just a thought not something i would really miss in the game)
leave us the choice to just leave the fighting to others and live our RPG live peacefully



Posted By: HandEFood

Re: Wishlist - 06/12/06 02:22 AM

Quote:

Im not sure how you are planning to do the fighting
but Im dreaming for a long time about a RPG where we can assign our own combos to our mousebuttons
everyone could have his own unique fighting style and change it so it feels natural for every player
and as your level increases you unlock different combos/skills to use with those combos
because in my opinion most RPGs are just about clicking on your enemys and you need no skill (often just a high lvl, or a good armor)
and that is getting old and boring to me because I played tons of RPGs just like that.
but please at least let us use combos and not always the same attack over and over and over and over again



You'd like Legend of Dragoon on the PSOne, a similar game to Final Fantasy. Each attack is a combo and you have to press buttons at the right moment to progress the combo. Every 20 times you fully complete a combo, it levels up giving greater bonuses. As your character levels up, more combos become available.
Posted By: NeroJB

Re: Wishlist - 06/12/06 08:23 AM

nubians galore!!!

Welcome!

Anyway most of my wishes have already been hit but there is one piece that I always liked that not alot of games have.(at least not well done)

Property ownership...or the ability to find a remote location and start a hideout, fort, or small town. Then depending on your character's alignment you would attract certain sorts of people...so say you are a sneaky thief type character with a penchant for assassination...your hideout would attract black market folks and bandits looking for a real leader...

Just imagine starting the game with nothing but clothes(not even shoes!!) and then building up through the course of the game to where you could have a functioning town, with smiths, and sages, and guards and whatnot...Its almost like a more general version of sim city put into an RPG...I love the idea.
Posted By: Hurri

Re: Wishlist - 06/12/06 09:20 AM

Quote:

nubians galore!!!

Welcome!

Anyway most of my wishes have already been hit but there is one piece that I always liked that not alot of games have.(at least not well done)

Property ownership...or the ability to find a remote location and start a hideout, fort, or small town. Then depending on your character's alignment you would attract certain sorts of people...so say you are a sneaky thief type character with a penchant for assassination...your hideout would attract black market folks and bandits looking for a real leader...

Just imagine starting the game with nothing but clothes(not even shoes!!) and then building up through the course of the game to where you could have a functioning town, with smiths, and sages, and guards and whatnot...Its almost like a more general version of sim city put into an RPG...I love the idea.




Couldn't agree more, I was thinking something very similar.
I would also like to see a developing character. Growing muscles, growing hair, slowly healing of wounds, scars, ...
Posted By: LewsTherinKinslayer13

Re: Wishlist - 06/12/06 09:31 AM

nero that's it exactly for me too! I always wanted to buy a castle and like be able to buy guards for it. Say like you have to pay them 500 gold every like month of in game time or w/e and they'll stay and guard. But if they get to too low health, maybe some of them will run away, or they might decide to rob you, so you need to choose who to hire? I dont know, maybe too indepth, hehe.

But thats what I want =D

Lews
Posted By: lepel

Re: Wishlist - 06/12/06 11:01 AM

Quote:

You'd like Legend of Dragoon on the PSOne, a similar game to Final Fantasy. Each attack is a combo and you have to press buttons at the right moment to progress the combo. Every 20 times you fully complete a combo, it levels up giving greater bonuses. As your character levels up, more combos become available.




thanks ill check that out!

but I still would like to see a RPG that worked this way for PC so i can use a mouse and keyboard
(a little bit like rakion (from softnyx) this is no RPG but the fighting is kinda nice. you can't change your combos but there are some pretty nice attacks in the game)
that game also shows that is not always smart to just use your strongest combo but need to think about who or what you are fighting

so its very important that you spend alot of time balancing out the combos and not that a certain lvl is almost invincible because his armor or attack is so strong it doesnt matter what he does
Posted By: lepel

Re: Wishlist - 06/12/06 11:04 AM

Quote:

nubians galore!!!

Welcome!

Anyway most of my wishes have already been hit but there is one piece that I always liked that not alot of games have.(at least not well done)

Property ownership...or the ability to find a remote location and start a hideout, fort, or small town. Then depending on your character's alignment you would attract certain sorts of people...so say you are a sneaky thief type character with a penchant for assassination...your hideout would attract black market folks and bandits looking for a real leader...

Just imagine starting the game with nothing but clothes(not even shoes!!) and then building up through the course of the game to where you could have a functioning town, with smiths, and sages, and guards and whatnot...Its almost like a more general version of sim city put into an RPG...I love the idea.




i was thinking about something similar like that too but i didnt write that idea down because else my post would become too long for ppl to read.
anyway it looks like alot of ppl would like to see this in a RPG

and if your town gets really big it would be nice if you had to defend it because someone wants taxes or to just take over your town (unless offcourse you chose to live the RPG live peacefully then it should become some sort of sanctuary)

EDIT: if we could start our own (small) town it would be nice to pay some npc builders and have them build some buildings for you. And if the npcs have a certain rep (for instance negative rep for murderers/thieves positive rep for ppl that hunt down murderers thieves) we could allow only ppl with a positive rep or a negative rep. (or only rich ppl that will pay some sort of entry fee)
or only ppl that will build a house/store in your city.
well if this gets included or something similar i have tons of ideas more but as it prolly will be too hard to add something like this, I will keep those ideas for myself for now.
(because i think i speak for everyone here if i say that we wouldnt want to wait 5 more years before the game gets finished due too some insane gamers with too much imagination and too much spare time on their hands and thus too many ideas that imo are worth considering)
Posted By: Ubereil

Re: Wishlist - 06/12/06 12:01 PM

Lepel: You might want to check out Jade Empire too . It's comeing to PC, and I think (though I havn't played it) that it might suit you .

Übereil
Posted By: Darkfall

Re: Wishlist - 06/12/06 01:45 PM

Hmmm.. long time since i posted on this forum.

I would like to add my wish to the wishlist.

Be able to keep on leveling..
I always liked the ability to max out every single atribute of your character.
That is what i always like when i play a rpg, starting with a weak player and work your way up to a strong high level warrior, with powerfull weapons and armor.
Posted By: TheDivine

Re: Wishlist - 06/12/06 02:46 PM

Two really awasome ideas.

Larian, please read

Als antwoord op:

nubians galore!!!

Welcome!

Anyway most of my wishes have already been hit but there is one piece that I always liked that not alot of games have.(at least not well done)

Property ownership...or the ability to find a remote location and start a hideout, fort, or small town. Then depending on your character's alignment you would attract certain sorts of people...so say you are a sneaky thief type character with a penchant for assassination...your hideout would attract black market folks and bandits looking for a real leader...

Just imagine starting the game with nothing but clothes(not even shoes!!) and then building up through the course of the game to where you could have a functioning town, with smiths, and sages, and guards and whatnot...Its almost like a more general version of sim city put into an RPG...I love the idea.




Als antwoord op:

Im not sure how you are planning to do the fighting
but Im dreaming for a long time about a RPG where we can assign our own combos to our mousebuttons
everyone could have his own unique fighting style and change it so it feels natural for every player
and as your level increases you unlock different combos/skills to use with those combos
because in my opinion most RPGs are just about clicking on your enemys and you need no skill (often just a high lvl, or a good armor)
and that is getting old and boring to me because I played tons of RPGs just like that.
but please at least let us use combos and not always the same attack over and over and over and over again



Larian, please read
Posted By: lepel

Re: Wishlist - 06/12/06 03:03 PM

Quote:

Lepel: You might want to check out Jade Empire too . It's comeing to PC, and I think (though I havn't played it) that it might suit you .

Übereil




ok thanks ill check that one out too when it comes out
Posted By: lepel

Re: Wishlist - 06/12/06 03:14 PM

Quote:

...
Tho, to get to my point a simple co-op mode would be great, accompagnied with a little friends client-server system. A la Diablo II. A more worked out meeting place "say, all inn's act as some cross-client meeting place" would be nice, to have some roleplaying interaction with strangers. But this might not be feaseble in a simple manner.

and ofcourse modability.




you mean like guildwars ? well the citys are the meeting places, not really inn's or something similar.
that was a nice idea i thought at first, but i proved to be quite frustrating finding a good team. but like this it would become more a mmorpg offcourse.
yet it would be very nice to still be able to play single player RPG and at the same time have the possibility to meet your friends or complete strangers in inns or citys or special meeting places.
and make it possible to play together (either in a duel or arena competition or play quests together. but the quests should be made harder the bigger the team gets so it is challenging (not impossible) if you play alone
and also still challenging for a team.
but as i already said, it would become more of an MMORPG...
Posted By: JohnnySD

Re: Wishlist - 06/12/06 04:41 PM

Quite honestly, I want it to to be a LOT like the original Divine Divinity. It combined an open world and interesting quest structure with the loot and item system of a roguelike action RPG like Diablo II.

People have already talked a lot about the open world, so I will concentrate on items:

Please have an item system similar to Divine Divinity only with more types of items and more unique one and artifacts. This adds a lot to the RPG experience and was done well in DD. Please make this a priority.

Other than that, I really trust you to get it right. I think you learned a lot from DD and BD and will make DD2 the best it can be. Cant wait to hear more and play it!
Posted By: Lady_Rain

Re: Wishlist - 06/12/06 07:43 PM

Well as for the game itself... i trust Larian to come up with a lovely game regardless of what i want.... but most of my wishlist has been mentioned here already.....

But on a different note....

Please make it compatible with programable gaming keyboards...
Ideazon - FangPads and Zboards

As far as i am aware, this is not a difficult procedure, as it only requires one of the developers to send through a list of ideal short-cut keys and what they are used for... the Ideazon team will provide all the utilities to create a downloadable Mod for the keyboards...

Optionally... (ideally from a marketing perspective)
Ideazon brings out custom keyboard layouts (asside from the programable MOD keyboard - which is hot-swop-able) that game developers use to further market the game. I for 1 will be one of the first to buy a Larian-layout keyboad, to make the next RPG a dream to play.

Guildwars - among various other games, Used this majorly to their advantage, by selling the keyboard-kit along with the game, (or was it the other way aroung... buy the keyboard with guildwars set and get the game with... anyways same concept).

Very popular games, that used the Zboard to further promote their game playability

Just something to look at.... at least the MOD...




Posted By: Namara

Re: Wishlist - 06/12/06 08:30 PM

My only wish is this one: I want to be able to play the new RPG on my computer (Athlon 64 3200+, 500 MB RAM, GeForce FX 5500)

... though I'm afraid this is utopic

Could anyone spare a better computer, perchance?
Posted By: Morbo

Re: Wishlist - 06/12/06 09:15 PM

A little suggestion. Have some "flat" fields. Some mountains are nice and can guide the player to where he is supposed to go. But some rpg go overkill with this. Whats wrong with a huge valleys?

Return of the huge green fields, not huge mountain area's.
Posted By: acoldone

Re: Wishlist - 06/12/06 09:27 PM

Full frontal nudity.
Posted By: TheDivine

Re: Wishlist - 06/12/06 09:50 PM

Als antwoord op:

A little suggestion. Have some "flat" fields. Some mountains are nice and can guide the player to where he is supposed to go. But some rpg go overkill with this. Whats wrong with a huge valleys?

Return of the huge green fields, not huge mountain area's.




both at its time
Posted By: Draghermosran

Re: Wishlist - 06/12/06 10:14 PM

Als antwoord op:

A little suggestion. Have some "flat" fields. Some mountains are nice and can guide the player to where he is supposed to go. But some rpg go overkill with this. Whats wrong with a huge valleys?

Return of the huge green fields, not huge mountain area's.




anyone heard of the mmorpg in development Fallen Earth?
It seems the world will be huge, covers a large part of the grand canyon, (takes place in a post acolyptic world a la Mad Max) It would take several days to walk/run from one side of the playable world to the other. Mounts are free, you can just hop on a horse, or build yourself a car. You navigate by landmarks. A similar thing in LNGRPG (larians next gen rpg) would be great, you start with a detailed map and find your way by landmarks and directions, markings on your map and a compass. Now the world itself doesn't have to be as vast but the principle of navigation would add a lot to an RPG.
Posted By: LewsTherinKinslayer13

Re: Wishlist - 06/12/06 11:34 PM

Meh GW is trash now.
Posted By: lepel

Re: Wishlist - 06/12/06 11:40 PM

Quote:

You navigate by landmarks. A similar thing in LNGRPG (larians next gen rpg) would be great, you start with a detailed map and find your way by landmarks and directions, markings on your map and a compass. Now the world itself doesn't have to be as vast but the principle of navigation would add a lot to an RPG.




Well imo its better to get a non detailed map at first and as you explore the world, the map gets more details.
This way you know where you have been and where you haven't.
A compass is nice but it should be just a compass and not like in oblivion where it shows you where you need to go. Because you get used to it and just run where your compass tells you to go instead of learning your way around the world. and in the end we don't even have to read what kind of a quest it is. Just run where the compass tells us to go and see what happens (so if you choose to implement an ubercompass, make sure people can turn it off)
I just want to find a RPG that doesnt become repetitive after a week (or less).

Speaking about repetitive please make the towns/caves/dungeons different.
because for example in oblivion those gates to oblivion were often too much alike and eventhough we had the choice to not play the main quest it annoys me to not have finished it. (and it was kinda weird how you could enter the mages quild without knowing all that much about magic, or join the fighters guild as a mage)
and in gothic 3 (I was playing as a rebel) I didnt want to have to finish quests for the orcs but if I didnt I was missing out on a huge part of the game...
(and it would be too repetitive to restart the game from scratch as an orc mercenary because alot of the quests wouldve been exactly alike)
it was also kinda lame that we had to start as a swordfighter and couldnt choose what he looked like. it couldve been such a richer game if we could be an orc or play through the game without having to touch a sword.
so when you give us choices make sure we actually have choices.

In simple terms to make sure you understand what I mean: give us the choice between an apple and an orange (or maybe even a banana)!
I do not want to choose between an apple or no apple...
Posted By: Nemisis_Dragon

Re: Wishlist - 07/12/06 05:10 PM

Beside a very good story/plot, interesting characters and the already shown stunning visuals, there should be some kind of Radiant AI system, like the one of Oblivion, which gives the world's npc different tasks for each simulated day -> ~schedules.

But the biggest wish for me is, that it should be released when it's really done . I don't want to see a second Gothic3 desaster.
Posted By: Lar_q

Re: Wishlist - 07/12/06 05:23 PM

A common theme in your posts is a big environment with lots of variation - easier said than done of course If you'd have to chose between:

Lots of levels with each level being very different, connected through a map a.k.a. Baldur's Gate or Fallout

OR

One big seamless world with more or less similar graphics throughout the map a.k.a. Oblivion

OR

Less detailed graphics in one big seamless world but with lots of variation a.k.a. World of Warcraft

Which would it be ?

Lar


Posted By: Nemisis_Dragon

Re: Wishlist - 07/12/06 05:34 PM

For me this one: One big seamless world with more or less similar graphics throughout the map a.k.a. Oblivion

There's imho a lot variation in the world of Oblivion, even if many textures/tiles are used a lot. I personally don't like WoW's detail level and technology (no speedtree and so on...). I know many love it, but I don't

Option 1 is no option for me. Come on, 2007 is coming soon
Posted By: lepel

Re: Wishlist - 07/12/06 05:47 PM

Quote:

Beside a very good story/plot, interesting characters and the already shown stunning visuals, there should be some kind of Radiant AI system, like the one of Oblivion, which gives the world's npc different tasks for each simulated day -> ~schedules.
But the biggest wish for me is, that it should be released when it's really done . I don't want to see a second Gothic3 desaster.




maybe they kept a few bugs at launch to make piracy harder

Quote:

A common theme in your posts is a big environment with lots of variation - easier said than done of course If you'd have to chose between:
Lots of levels with each level being very different, connected through a map a.k.a. Baldur's Gate or Fallout
OR
One big seamless world with more or less similar graphics throughout the map a.k.a. Oblivion
OR
Less detailed graphics in one big seamless world but with lots of variation a.k.a. World of Warcraft
Which would it be ?
Lar





To me it would be a world like oblivion too
but maybe more different towns (maybe the world of oblivion was too much a human controlled world)
and especially more different caves (and as i already said in another post, the planes of oblivion were too similar for me)
It made me wonder what the hell people have against daylight or light environments it would be nice if we could actually have more stuff to do in that big world instead of always finding caves or ruins (im not saying there shouldnt be any, but id choose 10 different caves over 100 similar ones any day)

this just made me realize i want to eat the cake and have it too
so...another option
More detailed graphics in a big world with lots of variation a.k.a. Larians next RPG !

btw wich one would you choose lar ?
Posted By: isorun

Re: Wishlist - 07/12/06 06:29 PM

I'll keep it plain and simple.
What i want the next RPG of larian to be: One of the Best Games Ever
And i'm sure that Larian will accomplish that. Divine Divinity was great, let The Next RPG be the best one ever made!!!
And ofcours some party system, with heroes or henchman(one of the best things in GW!!)
Posted By: Ubereil

Re: Wishlist - 07/12/06 06:54 PM

Anything that involves Fallout is great in my book . But seriouslly, I don't care much about Oblivions big world, since the contence within the world is so stale and empty. I'd rather have loads of different levels well developed than a big detailed world done poorlly. You have to fill that big detailed world too .

A thing I was to mention was that I thought Rivellon was unrealisticlly small. I mean, it took five minutes to walk from one end to the other, and that's the entire world! I think Arcanum handles this great by introduceing a worldmap whith locations, where the non-locations (ie, the wilderness) is just... plain trees for example. All doesn't have to be detailed, you can make some continuing wilderness randomly (with the occational small, detailed place like a cave, or a forgotten temple) while blowing the fuse on the "main" locations, such as Verdistis or the Elven forest.

Übereil
Posted By: Elliot_Kane

Re: Wishlist - 07/12/06 06:57 PM

Quote:

Less detailed graphics in one big seamless world but with lots of variation a.k.a. World of Warcraft




Definitely this one is the best of the three options, to me! Great graphics are wonderful, don't get me wrong, but gameplay is far more important than visuals.

The 'ideal' would be Dungeon Siege with huge open areas (IE cutting edge graphics, no loading screens) but if that's not possible I'd prefer to lose graphical quality than a sense of immersion. The more 'real' the world feels, the better - and that includes different places looking like different places.

And with a mini-map to aid navigation! Can't believe I forgot that on my list of things I'd like to see in the game! Huge areas are great: huge areas it's really easy to get lost in are not.
Posted By: Raze

Re: Wishlist - 07/12/06 07:49 PM

Less detailed graphics in one big seamless world but with lots of variation

I'd prefer a big seamless (or mostly seamless) world to lots of levels, and would not mind loosing some graphics detail for reasonable variation.
Posted By: Khamul

Re: Wishlist - 07/12/06 08:01 PM

I choose Less detailed graphics in one big seamless world but with lots of variation a.k.a. World of Warcraft

gameplay is way more important than graphics
Posted By: Foetsy

Re: Wishlist - 07/12/06 08:12 PM

Not the first option in any case.
And I don't care much for graphics either. Haven't played Oblivion, my videocard isn't supported, so...
Liked WoW though.
Posted By: Ragon_der_Magier

Re: Wishlist - 07/12/06 08:27 PM

Quote:

A common theme in your posts is a big environment with lots of variation - easier said than done of course If you'd have to chose between:

Lots of levels with each level being very different, connected through a map a.k.a. Baldur's Gate or Fallout

OR

One big seamless world with more or less similar graphics throughout the map a.k.a. Oblivion

OR

Less detailed graphics in one big seamless world but with lots of variation a.k.a. World of Warcraft

Which would it be ?

Lar







OH NOOOO, LAR!

You got it all wrong (once again ) !


It´ll be of course:

  • One big seamless world with varied, individually crafted eye opening locations and ambients in grand graphics a.k.a. Gothic 3


- the bugs
- the loss of character depth
- the loss of dialogue wealth

How´d you stumble across those other inferior options!?!?


Yours true and only
Ragon


P.S.: PB´s point of break had just been that they tried to do that and a groundup, groundbreaking new engine at the same time with an underfounded team.
But you have your engine ready and up to the task, haven´t you?
So, hush - it´s just about a continous rush of creativity, a sense for originality (you have proven by far already with Rivellon/DD,BD ) and rapid content creation (req. cleverly built tools ).

Posted By: elgi

Re: Wishlist - 07/12/06 08:54 PM

It's not such an easy question Lar asked there.... I'd say it depends on the game. Generally I'd go for the first option:
Quote:

Lots of levels with each level being very different, connected through a map a.k.a. Baldur's Gate or Fallout



The levels shouldn't be too small of course and the loading time should be very short. I'd prefer such an approach because with those huge worlds, I tend to feel overwhelmed lately. I mean, it's nice of course that the game worlds grow and grow but if the whole game turns into a schedule planning simulation in which you have to use a huge Excel sheet in order to know what to do where... it's not what I would call a great game.

I used to be a great fan of freedom of actions in games... however, I changed my mind partly and would prefer a game with a compelling story and a very visible main storyline. Of course the player should be able to do what they want and not follow the main story, but honestly: Who plays those games for weeks and months without caring about the story? Not many, I'd say... a few only compared to all the people who buy games like Oblivion or Gothic 3 for example. Personally, I am too old and don't have the time to excessively play a game for weeks... that's why I'd like to play a game which provides concentrated fun for the player. It's the developers' job now to make such a game - leading the player through the game along the storyline but also giving them the freedom to do a bit more if they want.

I think the level approach would be the best in that matter.
Posted By: Stone

Re: Wishlist - 07/12/06 09:27 PM

After my experience with Gothic 1 - 3 i can say i wish a seamless World, but it must not so big like G3. Several bigger Parts can be loaded in Game. This make place for a high detail Graphic, and a even scrolling World.

I think i like more Games with different Chapters, like G1. With a deep Story, and a good red line to follow, and the freedom to do everything i want. No hunting after the Storyline to bring the Game as soon as possible to an End.

A World wich is subdivide in diffenrent Parts with different level of difficulty. So that you cannot go in every Part as an beginner like in G3. And this is possibility to realize in an seamless World like Gothic 1.


Posted By: TheDivine

Re: Wishlist - 07/12/06 10:03 PM

Als antwoord op:

Als antwoord op:

A common theme in your posts is a big environment with lots of variation - easier said than done of course If you'd have to chose between:

Lots of levels with each level being very different, connected through a map a.k.a. Baldur's Gate or Fallout

OR

One big seamless world with more or less similar graphics throughout the map a.k.a. Oblivion

OR

Less detailed graphics in one big seamless world but with lots of variation a.k.a. World of Warcraft

Which would it be ?

Lar







OH NOOOO, LAR!

You got it all wrong (once again ) !


It´ll be of course:

  • One big seamless world with varied, individually crafted eye opening locations and ambients in grand graphics a.k.a. Gothic 3


- the bugs
- the loss of character depth
- the loss of dialogue wealth

How´d you stumble across those other inferior options!?!?


Yours true and only
Ragon


P.S.: PB´s point of break had just been that they tried to do that and a groundup, groundbreaking new engine at the same time with an underfounded team.
But you have your engine ready and up to the task, haven´t you?
So, hush - it´s just about a continous rush of creativity, a sense for originality (you have proven by far already with Rivellon/DD,BD ) and rapid content creation (req. cleverly built tools ).





and what raze said.


Gothic 3 was the best RPG this year imo (by far)
Posted By: AlrikFassbauer

Re: Wishlist - 07/12/06 10:05 PM

Hm, difficult questiom.

Personally, I'm rather for option 1, although option two is very tempting.

For option 1, then, I'd expect a "map-travel" like in the Realms of Arcania series (a similar thing will probably be used with the Drakensang game, too).


Posted By: Draghermosran

Re: Wishlist - 07/12/06 10:08 PM

Large seamless world, props and items get loaded differently, those can be detailed and have much variation. If the world itself doesn't, it's not that bad. You don't just walk from a forest into a desert... and 20 minutes later in a jungle. Atmosphere should be set by the props, buildings and behaviour of npc's rather than textures.

For example, if evil has affected a certain region, the enviroment doesn't get darker, it does not have to be clouded, raining... but npc's act frightened, they mutter and peer as you walk by, tools are just laying around where in not affected regions everyones friendly, smiling, organized and at work. In bad areas you don't hear much birds, some crows but it still can be bright bright sun, green grass, leafy trees.
Posted By: AlrikFassbauer

Re: Wishlist - 07/12/06 10:26 PM

I can also mutter as you walk by !


Posted By: Morbo

Re: Wishlist - 07/12/06 10:29 PM

I am torn between 2 and 3. Graphics are not as important to me, if the atmosphere is there. Something Oblivion lacked IMO.
Posted By: LewsTherinKinslayer13

Re: Wishlist - 07/12/06 11:26 PM

1 or 3.

=D



Posted By: DarkHawk

Re: Wishlist - 08/12/06 01:24 AM

Option 1, as long as there are possibilities for special encounters while travelling on the world map.

Otherweise I have only one wish for the next rpg, make it as bugfree as possible.
Posted By: Tutamun

Re: Wishlist - 08/12/06 01:41 AM

Quote:

Lots of levels with each level being very different, connected through a map a.k.a. Baldur's Gate or Fallout




I would prefer this option if it is used to tell a deep involving and interesting story. (I believe it is easier to to this with levels than if a player just wanders around freely in a large seamless world.)

If you do it right (cut scenes) you can create much stronger feelings since you control how you present the world to the player. In a seamless world where the player wanders around at will you loose a bit of control. (You can still show cut scenes.)

Levels that are very different can give us something to look forward too. Give us something new to admire from time to time. This can keep the game interesting graphics wise till the end.

At least I get bored if I have to walk the same way many times in a seamless world. Transportation in World of Warcraft is very annoying. It is very nice to fly over an area once or twice... but not every time you travel... just to avoid a loading screen. I'd rather just travel by map. (Lets go on a quest together... 15 minutes later you are still on your way or waiting for others.)

Levels could be adjusted/populated at loading time to represent different stages/directions of the story. Or the level could be adjusted according to current quests. [Guild Wars does it this way in it's instances.] Inform the player about changes in the level through cut scenes.

With a seamless world it could be much harder to achieve this in a believable way. (e.g. An army moves in to besiege a castle. It is easier to just place them in a level at loading time [+cut scene] than letting them gather and move to the castle while the player is watching them. Or even worse just let them spawn out of fresh air while player is watching.)

If the story requires time to advance you can use the 'travel times' between levels. This is fast but still believable. It is just a click away on the map. You can show a cut scene "two months later" with the hero on a ship in rough weather catching the first glimpse of the land he is traveling to. (Or the above example with the army besieging a castle.)

With levels and a world map to travel you don't need teleport stones. Teleport stones could easily break story/quests as the player can travel to any place he has visited before and dropped a teleport stone (as he knows that this will make a quest easier for example). With levels you have defined enter and exit spots for the player. (Exit spots only if the player needs to reach them to activate new areas on the map. Later he can just use the map.)

You can have quest givers and areas to do the quest far apart since they are only a click away on the map. In a big seamless world you either have to have quests taking place in a small area or give us means of teleportation. (Or have us take long walks.)

I could imagine that it is far easier to test a Level with a defined setting compared to a seamless world.

A short loading screen is ok for me. Show different artwork to keep it interesting.

Levels can vary in size. But don't make them too small. There can be (random) travel encounters on small (randomly created or a few hand crafted) levels or some story elements being told on small (hand crafted) levels. But on the other hand the swamp with a few imp villages could be in one large level (similar graphics).

I don't know why you would want to have less detailed graphics (like in World of Warcraft) when you have an engine like that (screenshot!)?



But now on to my Whishlist...

- It has to be Fun! *edit* forgot that one

- Interesting story that is also told in an interesting way.

- Easy interface/camera.

good: Guild Wars, World of Warcraft;

bad: Never Winter Nights 2 (I stopped playing because of the bad camera control. The story and the dialogues were pretty good and kept me playing for quite some time before I realized how annoying the camera really is. I hope they fix this in a patch.)

- Lots of ingame cut scenes with voice over to tell the story, some quest advancement, special conditions like entering a new area for the first time, meeting a monster for the first time.

[Guild Wars does cut scenes pretty well in it's Missions.]

Imagine you walk into a cave... camera switches to the eyes of a monster watching you enter the cave... a roar as it jumps at you... and the camera switches back giving you back controll. (This would only be the first time you encounter this strong enemy or enter this cave.)

When you enter a city for the first time show a cut scene from a nearby hill showing the city glittering in the evening sun. Merchants standing in front of the city gates discussing with the guards. This would compensate a bit for the 'experience' you have in a seamless world when walking over a hill and seeing the big city before you. With the cut scene you have a bit more control over how you present the city to the player. (Sure, you can also do cut scenes in a seamless world... but they would have to fit to where the player is standing now, what time it is... )

- Interesting dialogues.

- NPC's with a personality. (Even more if they are party members.)

- No 'big' bugs. (Crashes, unable to complete/advance story or quests, ...)
- No 'annoyance' bugs. (Bad controls, bad path finding, getting stuck, )

- Choice of player advances the story or quest in different directions. The choice should matter. But it should not cut you off of large parts of gameplay. Maybe even different endings for the story.

e.g. army besieging a castle. You find a cave with a secret passage into the castle.

a) Sneak in and receive two quests "provide defenders with food and weapons" and "get help against the army"

You can get help straight away. But it will be harder to defeat the attackers since the defenders can't help.

You can first get and deliver food and weapons to the defenders (sneaking past the attacking army).

But you find out something about the defenders letting you wonder if it is a good idea to help them.

You can go ahead and still help them. This time defeating the attackers is easier since the defenders of the castle can come out and help you.

-> The defenders are grateful for you help. You have a new place to buy and sell items and receive a few quest from the inhabitants.

b) Tell the army commander about the secret passage and receive a quest "sneak in an open the gates".

Depending on whether you provided food and weapons to the defenders in the castle the fight is harder.

If the attacking army finds out you helped the defenders (quest to kill your contact person before he is captured by the attacking army) you have to justify yourself.

-> The attackers are more or less grateful for your help and offer slightly different quests.

-> Maybe a part of the castle is burned down. Visual difference to your decision you made.

Oh! I'm getting carried away a bit. And I think I'm beginning to repeat myself.
Posted By: janggut

Re: Wishlist - 08/12/06 03:05 AM

Quote:

A common theme in your posts is a big environment with lots of variation - easier said than done of course If you'd have to chose between:

Lots of levels with each level being very different, connected through a map a.k.a. Baldur's Gate or Fallout

OR

One big seamless world with more or less similar graphics throughout the map a.k.a. Oblivion

OR

Less detailed graphics in one big seamless world but with lots of variation a.k.a. World of Warcraft




to answer Lar's question, i would pick option 1, then 3. i don't think i will like 2 as i really hate Oblivion (for being first person perspective).

probably to be more realistic, i would like to have a mix of option 1 & 3, as i prefer for the world not to be cut up according to level, act or story arc. probably the region can be cut up this way (like Fallout).

almost seamless is good as seamless often means toning down the graphics (otherwise rendering will be too much for older systems).

i like Draggy's idea about setting up the atmosphere which can use the same tile set but with different set of behaviour. it does give a lot of visual clue which require no words to convey.

what elgi said is something i agree too. however with the world cut up into different maps & areas, the current set of world can be easily expanded via teleporter stones or portals. thus the freedom is still there without ruining the balance of the original set or map.

Tutamun has a lot of great ideas. i quite like the part about travelling time which the journey can take from a day to months, depending on the distance. i would like for that idea to be expanded a bit with players being able to see their characters taking the route (drawn on the map of course) & with the ability to stop at anytime along the route.

with that, the map can also be expanded (in terms of usefulness) by showing icons of what happen around the region as characters travel along their route. that way, when u see some kind of happening (which can be a nice quest), u can always stop by that town or village to do something about it.

i guess this may mean some kind of cookie cutter side quests (a bit like BD Battlefields) so those who like to do lots of side quests, no matter how boring they are (people like me ), might like this.

my 2 cents.
Posted By: Draghermosran

Re: Wishlist - 08/12/06 07:47 AM

Some remarks on last comments, personally...

- no cutscenes, scripted events that take place while you play. You can choose to ignore the event. Tho if you do you'll miss out, find yourself in a nasty pickle. Have the player look around for clues, events taking place.

to illustrate with Tutanum's setting:
You near a castle, see an army beseiging a castle, you here a whistle as you turn to the forests edge a couple of children wave at you. So you approach the children "come here, quick hide before they see you" one whispers, "They don't know about the sewers" another one says to his friend wich replies "no no, you're not suggesting we'll go in? not me, no way!". "Somebody has to has to bring Elias his bow, if Elias has his bow this will all be over soon", "Yeah but you stole his bow, you go!", "Can you go sir?" the first child asks "I'm afraid we're to freightened" [questlog updated; find the sewers, locate Elias and hand him his bow]

- battlegrounds, if you have large world, there would be lot's of nothingness, areas wich could act as battlegrounds, away from areas you'll need to go for quests. Enemies will respawn there at reasonable pace. For example you can walk into orc controlled territory slash some orcs, come back later slash more orcs. While in allied zone's respawning is much much slower.
Posted By: Foetsy

Re: Wishlist - 08/12/06 10:13 AM

Is option 1 like in Fable (TLC)?
Posted By: Ubereil

Re: Wishlist - 08/12/06 10:13 AM

Svar till:

Gothic 3 was the best RPG this year imo (by far)




Have you played NWN2? Because I havn't played Gothic 3!

Übereil

Edit: New side ...
Posted By: Cristo

Re: Wishlist - 08/12/06 10:34 AM

Quote:


Lots of levels with each level being very different, connected through a map a.k.a. Baldur's Gate or Fallout
Lar






I prefer lots of variety. I hate the feeling of "seen that, done that".
I prefer a smaller game but with a really epic experience instead of a really big game of constantly encountering the same gfx and gameplay elements.

To put it in console-FPS terms.

In HALO you had the "30-seconds of great fun" every half an hour, which was cool.
But in Gears of War you have "30-second of great fun" every two minutes. (but the playtime is really short, but you just replay the game over and over, because it only consists out of great moments).
If that can be translated to an RPG, there would be a future after all.

C.
Posted By: Lurker

Re: Wishlist - 08/12/06 11:24 AM

I don't really care whether the world is seamless or not - a great game can be done with all three options mentioned above, and as long as the RPG is fun to play, graphics are less important to me. Like Übereil, I think Arcanum has done a good job of presenting a huge world while focusing graphical variation on selected places of interest.

Im dreaming for a long time about a RPG where we can assign our own combos to our mousebuttons
everyone could have his own unique fighting style and change it so it feels natural for every player
and as your level increases you unlock different combos/skills to use with those combos
because in my opinion most RPGs are just about clicking on your enemys and you need no skill (often just a high lvl, or a good armor)
and that is getting old and boring to me because I played tons of RPGs just like that.
but please at least let us use combos and not always the same attack over and over and over and over again


I'm strongly opposed to RPGs becoming fighting games that are won by the player's ability to quickly press the right buttons ... I wouldn't buy such a game. It's nice if you have to vary your method of attack depending on the foe and if your foes are clever enough to counter your tactics, but having dozens of different attacks and requiring the player to create combos from them should be reserved for hit'em'ups, imho.

Jade Empire (for the Xbox) has different fighting styles to choose from, which nicely fits this Asian-themed RPG, but you don't have to switch quickly between them. Moreover, they are unbalanced, and the fighting system is re-worked for the PC version that is due to come out in January 2007.
Posted By: Lar_q

Re: Wishlist - 08/12/06 11:38 AM

Our current idea is to connect different levels to each other through specific "gates" where we can stream out the level you were just in and stream in the level you're going to. In those gates, there is gameplay, it's just not so diverse as a level is.

So you get the idea of a seamless world whereas in actuality it is actually a collection of levels, and we have "in-between" levels" to offload the burden of doing heavy streaming (which as I'm sure you noticed in the more recent next-gen games is not everything it's cracked up to be )

On the topic - Oblivion/NWN/Baldur's Gate load in the interior of houses as different levels. Gothic doesn't. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages - which do you prefer ?

Lar
Posted By: Elliot_Kane

Re: Wishlist - 08/12/06 11:50 AM

Quote:

Our current idea is to connect different levels to each other through specific "gates" where we can stream out the level you were just in and stream in the level you're going to. In those gates, there is gameplay, it's just not so diverse as a level is.

So you get the idea of a seamless world whereas in actuality it is actually a collection of levels, and we have "in-between" levels" to offload the burden of doing heavy streaming (which as I'm sure you noticed in the more recent next-gen games is not everything it's cracked up to be )




Works for me

Quote:

On the topic - Oblivion/NWN/Baldur's Gate load in the interior of houses as different levels. Gothic doesn't. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages - which do you prefer ?

Lar




Best version I've seen is Dungeon Siege. I've not played Gothic, but if it's like that, then that's what I'd prefer.
Posted By: Myrthos

Re: Wishlist - 08/12/06 12:02 PM

Quote:

Our current idea is to connect different levels to each other through specific "gates" where we can stream out the level you were just in and stream in the level you're going to. In those gates, there is gameplay, it's just not so diverse as a level is.



Can you 'stream' back to a previously visited level?

Quote:

On the topic - Oblivion/NWN/Baldur's Gate load in the interior of houses as different levels. Gothic doesn't. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages - which do you prefer ?



If it is fast enough to load, it hardly matters.
Posted By: Draghermosran

Re: Wishlist - 08/12/06 12:02 PM

I would stream it, assigned with a stream radius. Loading it as a different level does hurt the flow of the gameplay, especially as you'll just run in and out.

Greater establishments like castles etc could verywell be a seperate level, just not the small house along the road.
Posted By: AlrikFassbauer

Re: Wishlist - 08/12/06 12:27 PM

In Antwort auf:

In those gates, there is gameplay, it's just not so diverse as a level is.




Sounds like a street, for example. Alongside a street, few things happan, apart from other travellers and inns.


Personally, I would prefer houses as part of the world, not as levels. I'd like to use them for hiding, for example (as long as the inhabitants do let me hide there. )

Stealing without being noticed by house inhabitants should not be possible. At least the inhabitants should notice that *something* is going on ("why are you rummaging in my chest ?")

Posted By: elgi

Re: Wishlist - 08/12/06 01:23 PM

Quote:

On the topic - Oblivion/NWN/Baldur's Gate load in the interior of houses as different levels. Gothic doesn't. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages - which do you prefer ?



A very important matter, thanks for mentioning it!!!

I think it is one of the most annoying things in games if there has to be loading when you enter a building. The loading isn't the problem actually, but the fact that the immersion is highly disturbed by that - imagine you enter a house in real life and have you wait a few seconds before doing so. And finally if you are in there and look out of the window, you don't see the normal word but just some static picture - or worse, nothing at all!

No, no, no! The best way would be seemless entering of any building - including caves or dungeons or whatever - and those have to be real parts of the world. So, if you open a window and look out of it, you have to see the person you were talking to just a minute before entering the room. You have to see and hear the outer world... feel the weather... and of course face the danger if you are in such a situation. Let's say you are in fight with Orcs and decide to run away. You run and run until you reach a town. The guards try to fight off the Orcs while you keep running. Finally, you think you are not seen by your enemies and jump into an old building. You close the door and hide in there... looking out of the window every now and then. There you can see how and hear how the Orcs manage to beat the guards... and then start looking for you. Maybe even storming a house or two. And if you are not a very lucky person, they enter your building and the fight continues...

I think it is highly recommended not to load buildings as different levels.
Posted By: lepel

Re: Wishlist - 08/12/06 02:36 PM

Quote:


I'm strongly opposed to RPGs becoming fighting games that are won by the player's ability to quickly press the right buttons ... I wouldn't buy such a game. It's nice if you have to vary your method of attack depending on the foe and if your foes are clever enough to counter your tactics, but having dozens of different attacks and requiring the player to create combos from them should be reserved for hit'em'ups, imho.





I'm not saying it should become a beat'em up game or use difficult combos
i mean if you press left mousebutton twice you shouldnt see the same attack twice but make it successive hits
and if you press forward and then hit the left mousebutton you should do a stablike movement
and for example use right mousebutton to use some stronger and slower attacks
and as your skills/level increases you should be able to use slightly different (better) attacks

gothic 3 was a step in the right direction but imo this couldve been worked out abit better

my problem with the gothic 3 attacks was that eventhough they change as you become a master they do not change enough
i mean there should be some lvls in between because you got the master rank much too soon
and it didnt really matter who or what u were fighting you didnt need tactics
often just keep hitting the left mousebutton would do the trick
to me this is boring...
another problem with gothic 3 was that i didnt feel the need to find teachers and spend the learning points i was strong enough anyway. Getting your char to a higher lvl should be something to look forward too

and if we could change the attacks as we see fit we could have a bigger choice between for example an agile swordsman that uses quick successive strikes opposed to a strong one that uses slower and stronger attacks, or the ability to have abit of both.
i can not understand why you wouldn't buy such a game because how i see this you could adjust it and tweak your build untill you have designed the fighting style that feels the most natural to you. and if you don't care about this you could just keep some default attacks.

And offcourse the game should be kept interesting but if i get alot of rewards too soon and unlock too strong attacks early in the game i get the feeling the game is almost over because i can't develop the character any further
(or at least not in the attributes that have any use to me)

so correct me if im wrong but i think that you misunderstood me
all i want is that the fights become interesting
else we could just point to our enemys click on them once and see our character fight them. and if the game is like that the fighting isn't exciting or fun but just something you want to have finished asap.

Posted By: knufknuf

Re: Wishlist - 08/12/06 02:46 PM

~Im dreaming for a long time about a RPG where we can assign our own combos to our mousebuttons
everyone could have his own unique fighting style and change it so it feels natural for every player
and as your level increases you unlock different combos/skills to use with those combos
~

How about the Final Fantasy XII system ? You can assign actions to your party members, optionally adding conditions such as "only heal when health < 50". As you get further, different conditions and actions become available.


Posted By: lepel

Re: Wishlist - 08/12/06 02:50 PM

Quote:

Our current idea is to connect different levels to each other through specific "gates" where we can stream out the level you were just in and stream in the level you're going to. In those gates, there is gameplay, it's just not so diverse as a level is.

So you get the idea of a seamless world whereas in actuality it is actually a collection of levels, and we have "in-between" levels" to offload the burden of doing heavy streaming (which as I'm sure you noticed in the more recent next-gen games is not everything it's cracked up to be )

On the topic - Oblivion/NWN/Baldur's Gate load in the interior of houses as different levels. Gothic doesn't. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages - which do you prefer ?

Lar




I like the idea to connect different levels through "gates" unless offcourse we could use those gates to flee from whatever was chasing us

and about the loading in the interior of houses
that really depends
small houses where there isnt much (or nothing at all) to be done shouldn't load as different levels
but maybe castles or something similar should


Posted By: AlrikFassbauer

Re: Wishlist - 08/12/06 02:57 PM

Short addendum to my opionion on that "seamless world" question :

I'm happy with anything, as long as there is plenty to explore !

To me, personally, exploring is one of the biggest fun parts in any game !

Posted By: lepel

Re: Wishlist - 08/12/06 03:12 PM

Quote:


How about the Final Fantasy XII system ? You can assign actions to your party members, optionally adding conditions such as "only heal when health < 50". As you get further, different conditions and actions become available.





haven't tried FF XII (yet)
but I don't like to assign actions to party members
i just want "intelligent" party members who won't get into trouble all the time.
i dont want to be a babysitter.
but when i get a "healer" in my team he should just concentrate on what he is best at (healing and not getting himself involved in the fight). just like if im a fighter and i get another fighter in my team he shouldn't rush into a fight if im not rushing into it.
unless im helping him thats something else
well i just dont want to be constantly telling my team what they should or shouldn't do
i just want to able to have interesting fights that aren't always the same
but an optional "please heal me" shout to a possible healer in my team should be ok or maybe a "wait here"

Posted By: Tutamun

Re: Wishlist - 08/12/06 03:17 PM

Quote:

On the topic - Oblivion/NWN/Baldur's Gate load in the interior of houses as different levels. Gothic doesn't. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages - which do you prefer ?




I don't mind having a loading screen from time to time. For example when traveling long distances. But if the levels are too small (every house a separate level) then it could get annoying and distract from the game.

If you can create the feeling of a seamless world with this streaming in 'in between' levels it would be really great!

Assuming that you would have a city in a separate level I would prefer being able to enter (normal) houses without a loading screen. A very big city could be divided into different district levels to keep memory usage low.

Very large buildings or dungeons could be different levels. But you could easily do the streaming in the hallway of a large building while you talk to the butler who lets you in. In large dungeons the streaming could be done in the first passage before you open the next door.

So if possible go for the Gothic style where you can enter houses without a loading screen. Where you can look in and out of windows and doors.

Posted By: Lurker

Re: Wishlist - 08/12/06 04:07 PM

and if we could change the attacks as we see fit we could have a bigger choice between for example an agile swordsman that uses quick successive strikes opposed to a strong one that uses slower and stronger attacks, or the ability to have abit of both.
i can not understand why you wouldn't buy such a game because how i see this you could adjust it and tweak your build untill you have designed the fighting style that feels the most natural to you. and if you don't care about this you could just keep some default attacks.


You can have an agile swordsman who uses quick successive strikes by focusing on the dexterity/agility attribute and choosing quick weapons like a rapier, whereas a strong swordsman who uses slower and stronger attacks would be focused on the strength or constitution attributes and use heavy weapons like battle axes - what else do you need? I think that's a much better approach than having combos.

Keeping fights interesting is fine, but having different special attacks and getting better ones as you advance in level is not a new concept in RPGs, and it's neither tied to having combos.
Posted By: Elliot_Kane

Re: Wishlist - 08/12/06 05:14 PM

On the fighting combos thing: The Conan game of a few years ago did that, and the system was brilliant, but that was basicly a third person hack n slash where all the abilities Conan gained were related to fighting. I should imagine it would be very hard to implement in a game that also included other career paths.

Being most in favour of a party-based character-driven story with a strong emphasis on personality building as in PS:T, I can't say massive combat options are a priority of mine anyway.
Posted By: Morbo

Re: Wishlist - 08/12/06 05:40 PM

I like the idea of lar_q. It takes out the boring walking from oblivion. But does the player have "the feel" it is one world? And is the idea of polymorfing in to a dragon to cross great distances still in play at this point?
Posted By: lepel

Re: Wishlist - 08/12/06 05:49 PM

Quote:

and if we could change the attacks as we see fit we could have a bigger choice between for example an agile swordsman that uses quick successive strikes opposed to a strong one that uses slower and stronger attacks, or the ability to have abit of both.
i can not understand why you wouldn't buy such a game because how i see this you could adjust it and tweak your build untill you have designed the fighting style that feels the most natural to you. and if you don't care about this you could just keep some default attacks.


You can have an agile swordsman who uses quick successive strikes by focusing on the dexterity/agility attribute and choosing quick weapons like a rapier, whereas a strong swordsman who uses slower and stronger attacks would be focused on the strength or constitution attributes and use heavy weapons like battle axes - what else do you need? I think that's a much better approach than having combos.

Keeping fights interesting is fine, but having different special attacks and getting better ones as you advance in level is not a new concept in RPGs, and it's neither tied to having combos.




well i wouldn't call a "swordsman" using a battleaxe a swordsman
and i was just giving examples
but why didn't you comment the part "or the ability to have abit of both"
or "and if you don't care about this you could just keep some default attacks"
(or in other words let the computer worry about your "combos")

but am i getting it right you just like bashing on one single mousebutton ?

I never claimed that this is a new idea.
all i want is a way to use different attacks like a fast attack, a strong attack, a somewhat more defensive kind of attack (or a counterattack)
and i dont want to hit quickly with the rapier
then restart the game put my attributes differently and let my swordsman use a battleaxe to get a strong attack

agreed we have the attributes to give the basics to our character to be either a fast hitting agile swordsman with a rapier or a strong and slow fighter with a battleaxe or hammer or something
but imo this shouldn't mean that all a rapier can do is to use the same attack
its main attack should prolly be fast for successive hits, but would it bother you so much that as a rapier user, you would be able to use a slightly stronger attack also when you are facing big and slow enemys
with an axe or hammer this could mean you could try to chop your opponent in two pieces by using the strong attack (so raise it above your head and chop down with all your might) and just a sideways attack more as a counterattack

and again this doesnt have to be new but wouldnt you think it would be lame if a mage had only one attack (for example a fireball) and all the mage could do was boost his attributes so either he could shoot fireballs faster or boost the magic so it became stronger
i dont think many people would be happy with that

so all i'm asking/saying is that imo it would be better to give us the choice wether we want to use different attacks or not.
we could still keep the old attacks (since they will get stronger because of the attributes) but this way we will be given a choice

or dont you think a character should be able to fight slow and fast enemys as well ?

and it doesn't have to mean that more combat options would mean less other options
this game isn't finished yet and i hope (and i think everyone on this forum) wants this game to be a better game than any other RPG we played before

and as i said if you don't like fighting we should be given the choice to have a more peacefull way to play the RPG
but i just want to have the choice...

Posted By: Lurker

Re: Wishlist - 08/12/06 08:12 PM

Well, substitute "battle axe" with "two-hander", if you like, the "in between" thing being a broadsword or whatever. Apparently, you want to have fast and strong attacks, regardless of which weapon you use. I don't find it very convincing that you should have a fast attack with a heavy two-hander or a mighty blow with a light rapier.

And no, fights shouldn't just consist of frantically hitting the mouse button. I prefer turn-based tactical fights, though I realize they are getting rare. I also like real-time fights that you can pause to analyze the situation and to adjust your tactics, if necessary. I'm not interested in fights that are only tests of whether you can press the right buttons quickly enough.

If I get you right, you want something that keeps you occupied while your character fights. Fine. In Divine Divinity, fighters had a special attack you could use when surrounded by enemies and a normal attack you could use against single foes. That made sense. So how many different attacks are you suggesting to implement and in which situations should they be effective? If you just want your character's attacks to look flashy, I don't mind. However, there's a difference between an option to switch fighting styles and a necessity to do that if you want to win.

What you've written sometimes rather sounds like the latter. If I can let the computer worry about my "combos" and still fight as effectively as someone who uses the different attack options you've mentioned, why would most people bother to use different attack options at all?

This is part of the problem that Jade Empire had: Different attack styles (and in an Asian-themed world where they really fit), plus enemies that were immune to certain attack styles - but most of the time, one still didn't have to switch between, so many players found them boring (and additionally, they weren't balanced).

In my eyes, this is a fundamental problem: Either you force players to switch styles/press different buttons, or the whole system becomes somewhat superfluous.
Posted By: Raze

Re: Wishlist - 08/12/06 09:00 PM

Our current idea is to connect different levels to each other through specific "gates" where we can stream out the level you were just in and stream in the level you're going to. In those gates, there is gameplay, it's just not so diverse as a level is.

You mean something like a mountain pass, that you walk through to get to another region?
If gameplay is relatively open and the world immersive, that's all that counts. Dungeon Siege was very seamless, but the world was very linear and IMNSHO very boring.


On the topic - Oblivion/NWN/Baldur's Gate load in the interior of houses as different levels. Gothic doesn't. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages - which do you prefer ?

Like most others I'd prefer house interiors not be separate levels. If the load time was short I wouldn't mind if they were, however.
Posted By: Raze

Re: Wishlist - 08/12/06 09:00 PM

but I don't like to assign actions to party members
i just want "intelligent" party members who won't get into trouble all the time.
i dont want to be a babysitter.


That is the point of being able to set actions for characters, so you don't have to babysit. This could be something simple, like setting a warrior as aggressive, defensive or guard, or a setting for a mage to determine how much mana they will use. Another handy option would be settings for who to attack; you could have characters attack the closest, weakest or strongest opponent, only attack if they are attacked or have an archer only attack opponents that are already being attacked (so they don't draw more enemies into the fight).

Knufknuf's suggestion (welcome to the forum. ) was to have the option to fine tune the character AI even further. You wouldn't have to do this, and once set up, it would require very little maintenance. I've had healers waste mana fixing minor wounds and mages use their most powerful spell against insignificant opponents, depleting mana that would have been much better kept in reserve.

Basically, no matter how reasonable the default behaviours are for a given character, there will be situations or gameplay styles in which some aspect of the AI will be annoying, counterproductive or even dangerous. The ability to tweak the AI would be nice to have.
Posted By: Raze

Re: Wishlist - 08/12/06 09:01 PM

but am i getting it right you just like bashing on one single mousebutton ?

Speaking for myself, I don't like having to hit various key/button combinations, particularly if you have to match timing as well.


In Evil Islands you could hold specific keys down while attacking to target specific parts of the body (ie you have a lower chance to successfully hit someone in the head, but if you do it does much more damage), or simply attack and the game would choose (primarily targeting the main body). This could be very useful against strong opponents especially if you could sneak up behind them, but most of the time I didn't bother.

If different attacks could be set up something like that, then that would be fine. If fights would need to be micro-managed or require lost of key mashing that would turn me off the game completely.
Posted By: lepel

Re: Wishlist - 08/12/06 09:06 PM

Quote:

Well, substitute "battle axe" with "two-hander", if you like, the "in between" thing being a broadsword or whatever. Apparently, you want to have fast and strong attacks, regardless of which weapon you use. I don't find it very convincing that you should have a fast attack with a heavy two-hander or a mighty blow with a light rapier.




well i said that the basics were dependent on your attributes (and weapon)
so the "slow and strong" rapier attack wouldn't be as slow or as powerfull as the axe.
Quote:


And no, fights shouldn't just consist of frantically hitting the mouse button. I prefer turn-based tactical fights, though I realize they are getting rare. I also like real-time fights that you can pause to analyze the situation and to adjust your tactics, if necessary. I'm not interested in fights that are only tests of whether you can press the right buttons quickly enough.



replace the word "combo" with "tactics" and the only difference would be that you had more time to think it through and i would need to make fast decisions
the enemy does this so i should do that...
so add a way to pause the game and we could both be happy
or maybe just forget the word combo but i used it since it appeared like an easy way to do different attacks. but to me pausing the game would make it less real.
turn-based is also something i could live with, the reason i started about the combo thing is that fighting in recent rpgs was boring most of the times.
but i either want the fight to be a challenge as in pressing the right buttons at the right time. or either as a turn-based fight that actually needed you to think about the pros and contras of certain strategys.
and im sorry i understood you wrong at first but you gave me the impression you were happy with fights as in oblivion or gothic 3 for example.
and in those games "frantically hitting the mouse button" would often do the trick
Quote:


If I get you right, you want something that keeps you occupied while your character fights. Fine. In Divine Divinity, fighters had a special attack you could use when surrounded by enemies and a normal attack you could use against single foes. That made sense. So how many different attacks are you suggesting to implement and in which situations should they be effective? If you just want your character's attacks to look flashy, I don't mind. However, there's a difference between an option to switch fighting styles and a necessity to do that if you want to win.




yes i would like something that keeps me occupied. something between 4 and 8 attacks at a time would do the trick for me, that is if they could be changed so i wouldn't end up using the same attack a thousand times.
if getting better at a attack would make the attack more "flashy" it could also help a little bit not that it would become more fun or the kind of fighting i want. but hopefully it will not look as repetitive as it would without the attacks getting flashy.
Quote:


What you've written sometimes rather sounds like the latter. If I can let the computer worry about my "combos" and still fight as effectively as someone who uses the different attack options you've mentioned, why would most people bother to use different attack options at all?




i can't speak in the name of most people. but those different attacks would require you to rethink the fighting style, make it more challenging and interactive.
Quote:


This is part of the problem that Jade Empire had: Different attack styles (and in an Asian-themed world where they really fit), plus enemies that were immune to certain attack styles - but most of the time, one still didn't have to switch between, so many players found them boring (and additionally, they weren't balanced).
In my eyes, this is a fundamental problem: Either you force players to switch styles/press different buttons, or the whole system becomes somewhat superfluous.



well as i said in a previous post they would really need to balance the attacks for it to work if the attacks aren't balanced they shouldn't even bother.

im getting the impression that there is something we agree on:
it should be challenging!

but i guess you want a more strategic fight while i would like to see a more fast paced fight

Posted By: lepel

Re: Wishlist - 08/12/06 09:13 PM

Quote:

but I don't like to assign actions to party members
i just want "intelligent" party members who won't get into trouble all the time.
i dont want to be a babysitter.


That is the point of being able to set actions for characters, so you don't have to babysit. This could be something simple, like setting a warrior as aggressive, defensive or guard, or a setting for a mage to determine how much mana they will use. Another handy option would be settings for who to attack; you could have characters attack the closest, weakest or strongest opponent, only attack if they are attacked or have an archer only attack opponents that are already being attacked (so they don't draw more enemies into the fight).

Knufknuf's suggestion (welcome to the forum. ) was to have the option to fine tune the character AI even further. You wouldn't have to do this, and once set up, it would require very little maintenance. I've had healers waste mana fixing minor wounds and mages use their most powerful spell against insignificant opponents, depleting mana that would have been much better kept in reserve.

Basically, no matter how reasonable the default behaviours are for a given character, there will be situations or gameplay styles in which some aspect of the AI will be annoying, counterproductive or even dangerous. The ability to tweak the AI would be nice to have.




then i guess i just misunderstood it (misunderstanding people is getting a habit of mine...) if you put it like that and if you really had to set it once with little or no maintenance i can't see any reason not to implement this
that is if my partymembers wouldn't go acting all crazy (unless thats what i tell them to do )
Posted By: Tutamun

Re: Wishlist - 08/12/06 09:58 PM

Lepel and Lurker, how about the way Guild Wars does it?

There are different skills for different situations.
- normal auto attack
- special attack that does more damage
- a special slash that causes bleeding wounds
- a special blow that causes the enemy to get stunned
- a special stab that interrupts the enemies special attack
- a special attack that does less damage but draws attention
- a whirling attack that damages all enemies around you

In Guild Wars you can only take 8 skills into combat. You have to decide which ones you take and which ones you leave. When you use skills they drain your mana/endurance/or whatever depending on the power of the skills. Skills also have cool down timers depending on their power. So you can not use skills by clicking them fast and repeatedly. You have to use them in the right situation to be effective.

e.g. if you see that your enemy prepares for a special attack you would use your special stab to disrupt him. If you don't you would take serious damage.
When two enemies attack you you could use stun on one taking him out of the fight for a few seconds so that you can finish the second opponent...

Some of the skills above only make sense if you have a party. You could get an attacker off your healer with your attack that draws his attention.
Posted By: Morbo

Re: Wishlist - 08/12/06 10:24 PM

Is that what Lar_q said the same as the original ? You got 1 or 2 transition from rivertown to verdistis. So you got relatively large areas with distinct elements and and specific portal to make transitions and Oblivion just had a large landscape as transition. I prefer the mountain pas approach like Raze said. Personally I really like the GTA approach (don't know what rpg uses this). They use (broken) bridges as transitions. It feels like one world but unless you swim (or fly) you have to take the bridge. For me the GTA approach is one of the best I have ever seen.

I also prefer the houses interiors are loaded in the open world (and a village can have a loading screen). But it all depends on the load time. Are we talking seconds, 10 seconds and what interval of the loads (searching a village can be hard when every house you enter takes 10 sec to load ), then again I don't want a load screen every 3 steps I take.
Posted By: elgi

Re: Wishlist - 08/12/06 10:37 PM

Quote:

I also prefer the houses interiors are loaded in the open world (and a village can have a loading screen). But it all depends on the load time. Are we talking seconds, 10 seconds and what interval of the loads (searching a village can be hard when every house you enter takes 10 sec to load ), then again I don't want a load screen every 3 steps I take.



I feel the urge to repeat my point here: The problem in that matter is not loading or not loading but different level or seamless entering. Sure, loading of 2 seconds is not much... but if you have to live with buildings which don't have any interaction with the outer world, it's too much in my opinion.

So, I don't care if there is some loading when entering a building... the only thing I regard as crucial is that the buildings have to be part of the world... so, looking out of the window or even climb out of the window should be possible.
Posted By: Zephyrus

Re: Wishlist - 08/12/06 11:15 PM

Quote:


Less detailed graphics in one big seamless world but with lots of variation a.k.a. World of Warcraft






Actually I've found it quite the opposite - creating lower polygonal objects takes a LOT more work than detailed ones. Then of course, if you push a little further into the next-gen you have to add normal/parallax mapping and all that good stuff so it eventually balances out from one side of the spectrum to the other

In reality though, you don't have to go that far depending on your target platform. By doing high-poly environmental models without all those fancy shaders you can effectively compensate for them(the displacement and bump maps anyway). In my opinion they're not worth it anyway as normal maps have a tendency to scream unrealistic in my face when used on virtually everything even where it's not seriously needed.

I guess it all comes down to your budget and the talents within the team in the end..

Anyway, I'd like to say I was impressed with the new screenshot you guys released Giant leap from the last ones from a year ago.

Cheers!


Quote:


On the topic - Oblivion/NWN/Baldur's Gate load in the interior of houses as different levels. Gothic doesn't. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages - which do you prefer ?

Lar




(just so you know Lar, I'm not trying to school you but hopefully provide some insight for other people. If you learn something that great too though )

Theoretically the advantages to having a load between the interior and exterior is all about your computer(I can't think of one that benefits the person playing, can you?) and the advantages to seamless transition is supporting the "suspension of disbelief," the holy grail of RPGs. If your engine can handle everything well, then seamless transition is great! Otherwise, it should only be middle priority for things to go out the door in my opinion.

Suspension of disbelief is important to sucking the player in. It's what makes you forget about real life and living in the world you are playing in. It's the difference between Oblivion(lack of suspension) and Divine Divinity(excellent in suspension). It's the difference between a good game, and the game you'll be playing from start to finish, and back again 5 or even 10 years later. There are many factors contributing to this suspension - encompassing from great environmental art, well-timed music, to believable dialog. Because this is from so many different fields within game development, it's the leader of direction who has to have a solid vision and to be able to communicate this vision effectively to the other leads and developers. Without either the compelling vision or sufficient communication skills, you will not have a team that shares the same vision - and without it, the game world will not flow properly and you will end up with something like Oblivion. In addition to this, the developers need to have open ears and creative minds to have this vision for themselves. It's hard to find this perfect mix, but I have a firm belief that Larian Studios is one of the few developer houses that has this mix.


I can't wait to see what Larian has in store for us for their next-generation game
Posted By: LewsTherinKinslayer13

Re: Wishlist - 08/12/06 11:22 PM

I hate how Guild Wars is set up with 8 skills only.
Posted By: TheDivine

Re: Wishlist - 08/12/06 11:25 PM

Als antwoord op:

I like the idea of lar_q. It takes out the boring walking from oblivion. But does the player have "the feel" it is one world? And is the idea of polymorfing in to a dragon to cross great distances still in play at this point?




as you put it, i like the idea. A very important thing is that the world feels as one big thing but with different things everywhere.

I would totally hate it if you'd do it like NWN or NWN2, the "module system" takes away the whole "one big world feeling".

What is very important to me too is that it isnt like a lineair way you follow ( like NWN2 or Titan quest)

for me, the ideal thing for the world how to be would be much like Gothic3, i really really liked that game. Anyway, idd rather have some stuttering then an end to a "level" or whatever. If you can see the whole world and you can cross to the next level wherever you want. NOT some single point. it seems acceptable.

Ayway. It would be really bad if the dragon idea was gone and i think this idea will get rid of that (or perhaps theres a good solution).





Als antwoord op:

Als antwoord op:

Gothic 3 was the best RPG this year imo (by far)



Have you played NWN2? Because I havn't played Gothic 3!

Übereil

Edit: New side ...





I am playing NWN2 atm, directly after i played Gothic 3. NWN2 looks a lot better on my comp but anyway, it really lacks much that i think a game should have. The world doesn't have the feeling its alive and thats the basic for a good game imo.
Anyway, Im enjoying NWN2 too, but not by far as much as i would have hoped after playing Gothic3.

EDIT: new side?
Posted By: lepel

Re: Wishlist - 09/12/06 01:59 AM

Quote:

Lepel and Lurker, how about the way Guild Wars does it?

There are different skills for different situations.
- normal auto attack
- special attack that does more damage
- a special slash that causes bleeding wounds
- a special blow that causes the enemy to get stunned
- a special stab that interrupts the enemies special attack
- a special attack that does less damage but draws attention
- a whirling attack that damages all enemies around you

In Guild Wars you can only take 8 skills into combat. You have to decide which ones you take and which ones you leave. When you use skills they drain your mana/endurance/or whatever depending on the power of the skills. Skills also have cool down timers depending on their power. So you can not use skills by clicking them fast and repeatedly. You have to use them in the right situation to be effective.

e.g. if you see that your enemy prepares for a special attack you would use your special stab to disrupt him. If you don't you would take serious damage.
When two enemies attack you you could use stun on one taking him out of the fight for a few seconds so that you can finish the second opponent...

Some of the skills above only make sense if you have a party. You could get an attacker off your healer with your attack that draws his attention.




In the beginning I thought the guild wars system was great and I really enjoyed it. but after a while something started to bother me.
You could just use some fast keys to lock on to a target and start pressing your skillbuttons.(not randomly offcourse it does require a great deal of strategy)
And the quest for "the perfect build" (by this I mean the build that suited me the most) kept me happy for quite some time.
The lock on is good for a mesmer I thought and it felt natural and its pretty good for a monk too. (they were called monks right ?)
But as a warrior you could just select a target and it would auto hit it,
same for a ranger.
As an elementalist I think you should have some spells that use some sort of lock on but not for all.
Offcourse this is my opinion.
And when im using a bow I like to aim.
Some skills like a fire ball or some range effect spells shouldnt be locked on to a target but a fire ball should be aimed and the range effect should just be cast on an area im aiming at or pointing too.
I guess the guild wars system is pretty good when you have a team of players you are used to play with and you adjust your builds for the benefit of the team.
but this isn't the system I would choose in a single player RPG.
Allthough I liked the fact that you could only take 8 skills at a time, this made you think in advance about the pros and the contras and plan out your fighting style. (while in the fight itself you wouldn't need to worry about oh no I got 100 different skills wich one should I use)

I guess maybe a combination of guild wars and gothic 3 would be nice.
You control the "basic" attacks in about the same way gothic 3 does
(right mouse button, left mousebutton and the combination of both do different attacks wich slightly change as you master the skill)
But in addition some extra skills in about the same way guildwars uses them.

The nice thing about it was that some people I knew in guild wars weren't too fond about using those skills all the time. They enjoyed rushing into battle and the only real skills they used were some kind of healing skill and maybe an attack skill that temporarily boosted your attack.
The way they did this was just get some enchantments that stay active till either you run out of mana or someone removed it from you.

Are there people that would hate a system like that or ?
I just want some comments some pros or contras I might not think about right now.

EDIT: Some caps . I'm going on and on about the fighting because in alot of rpgs I think the balance is: (roughly) 1/3 of fighting, 1/3 walking, 1/3 other stuff).
And because the fighting in other RPGs imo often really was boring.


Posted By: elgi

Re: Wishlist - 09/12/06 02:30 AM

Quote:

i just want some comments some pros or contras i might not think about right now.



How about: Why talking that much about fighting?

That's briefly for: Fights are nice and such... but I hope it will not be the main part of the game.

And now, continue the discussion.

lepel: Do you think you could think capital letters every now and then? Not that I want to force my way of writing upon you but your write nice long posts... which are quite difficult to read if everything is written in non-caps.
Posted By: knufknuf

Re: Wishlist - 09/12/06 03:08 AM

Ok, not to annoy elgi by going back to the topic once more, but I just wanted to clarify the gambit thing. The idea of setting up actions is exactly to get your party members to run on auto-pilot for 90% of the time. It is the complete opposite of assigning actions to a button, and then smashing the button. Instead you're assigning several actions to a party member for the entire time. Then the semi-intelligent behavior comes out due to the fact that you have several of these actions, and you can add conditions on when to do what. So in effect it's a very simple programming language that allows you to set up the party members, so you only need to suspend that mini-script when you want to take over, for the 10% other cases where it gets tricky (or you want to do something special).

Here is a screenshot.

Posted By: AlrikFassbauer

Re: Wishlist - 09/12/06 11:02 AM

In Antwort auf:

Actually I've found it quite the opposite - creating lower polygonal objects takes a LOT more work than detailed ones.




Yes, but then comes psychology (or headology, as you might put it) : People might consider games with polygonal objects with a lower number of polygones themselves as "weaker" and not so good than with more polygones - just out of the mere look.
Or maybe as more "comic-like", as some editors of German gaming magazines put it.

The question is : Would many polygones rather appeal to gamers or fewer polygones ? Are are gamers not affected at all, as long as the gameplay is good ?


Posted By: Ubereil

Re: Wishlist - 09/12/06 11:27 AM

Svar till:

Svar till:

Actually I've found it quite the opposite - creating lower polygonal objects takes a LOT more work than detailed ones.




Yes, but then comes psychology (or headology, as you might put it) : People might consider games with polygonal objects with a lower number of polygones themselves as "weaker" and not so good than with more polygones - just out of the mere look.
Or maybe as more "comic-like", as some editors of German gaming magazines put it.

The question is : Would many polygones rather appeal to gamers or fewer polygones ? Are are gamers not affected at all, as long as the gameplay is good ?






If I could choose I would like more polygons, but the main thing is story and characterinteraction (and gameplay).

Übereil
Posted By: Lurker

Re: Wishlist - 09/12/06 12:42 PM

replace the word "combo" with "tactics" and the only difference would be that you had more time to think it through and i would need to make fast decisions
the enemy does this so i should do that...
so add a way to pause the game and we could both be happy


Possibly, as long as one can give commands while the game is paused – in some games one can't. Still, I don't want RPGs to become too similar to fighting games or first-person shooters. I also hated the race and the space fight in Knights of the Old Republic, although they fitted well into a Star Wars game, admittedly. Embedding elements from other genres into RPGs is fine – if you don't have to use them in order to complete the game. They should just be additions.

im getting the impression that there is something we agree on:
it should be challenging!

but i guess you want a more strategic fight while i would like to see a more fast paced fight


Since this is about personal taste, there's no need to agree on anything. Yes, we do like different kinds of fights. That's fine. Maybe Larian will even find a way to please us all

@Tutamun: I haven't played Guild Wars, so I can't really tell whether I like that system. Your description of it doesn't closely match what I prefer, but I would have to play it in order to be sure.

Posted By: lepel

Re: Wishlist - 09/12/06 12:59 PM

Quote:

replace the word "combo" with "tactics" and the only difference would be that you had more time to think it through and i would need to make fast decisions
the enemy does this so i should do that...
so add a way to pause the game and we could both be happy


Possibly, as long as one can give commands while the game is paused – in some games one can't. Still, I don't want RPGs to become too similar to fighting games or first-person shooters. I also hated the race and the space fight in Knights of the Old Republic, although they fitted well into a Star Wars game, admittedly. Embedding elements from other genres into RPGs is fine – if you don't have to use them in order to complete the game. They should just be additions.

im getting the impression that there is something we agree on:
it should be challenging!

but i guess you want a more strategic fight while i would like to see a more fast paced fight


Since this is about personal taste, there's no need to agree on anything. Yes, we do like different kinds of fights. That's fine. Maybe Larian will even find a way to please us all

@Tutamun: I haven't played Guild Wars, so I can't really tell whether I like that system. Your description of it doesn't closely match what I prefer, but I would have to play it in order to be sure.





I know we don't have to agree on anything. But if everyone on this forum agreed on we want this or that. Our position versus larian would become stronger and it would be easier for them to understand what "the community" wants. And if that were the case the chance of ideas of this wishlisht actually making it in the game would become alot bigger.
Unless offcourse Larian does find a way to please us all wich would be even better.

Guild wars requires you to press the buttons fast so I'm not sure if that is what you want. It does require a great deal of tactics that you carefully plan in advance. But activating those skills is pretty fast paced and sometimes being just a little bit too late can mean the difference between winning or losing a fight. (Also read the part I've written about the warriors with their enchantments)
So you don't really need to keep activating all those different skills all the time.
But it still isn't a game that can be paused nor is it a turn-based game.
Posted By: Tutamun

Re: Wishlist - 09/12/06 03:55 PM

Quote:

@Tutamun: I haven't played Guild Wars, so I can't really tell whether I like that system. Your description of it doesn't closely match what I prefer, but I would have to play it in order to be sure.




It is totally different to the normal Diablo style gameplay where you assign one or two skills to your mouse buttons and keep hitting them until the monster is dead... and drinking a mana or health potion from time to time. This can also be fun if you are tired after a long day at work and don't want to think a lot and just have fun.

I don't know if the Diablo style works really well in a full 3D game. Well probably it does... but I think you could do something better. Why learn different skills when you only use one or two? Gothic also does not do very well in this respect. Targeting is different to Diablo style games. But most fights you win by simply hitting the left mouse button...? Why not include different skills that you have to use to beat certain enemies? Where you have to watch yourself, your party member and the enemies and decide when to use which skill.

I don't say that it should be done like in Guild Wars. But you could learn from Guild Wars or any other game that relies on using different skills.

You don't have to limit it to only 8 skills. You could make the combat a bit slower... or let us pause the game... or highlight 'counter' skills that you can currently use...

But many things depend on how the next big Larian game is set up.
- Single or multi player?
- Just you as a lone hero or a party?
- Can you control party member if there are any?
- 3rd person or 1st person or some sort of isometric view?
- Can you pause and select skills, give commands?

Talking about combat before we know these things is probably a waste of time. Many skills I'm thinking of would simply not work if you run around alone.

ps. Lepel, Monk is correct. And even with Warriors and Rangers you need to use your different skills. Just using autoattack hurts your group more than it does good.

Having to aim would make it a different game... shooter style.

With the heroes of the Nightfall expansion you can play a single player game (still online) and control which skills your (three) heroes take with them. Pretty nice, but I wish there was a pause button so you could control them during a fight. (You can but its far to hectic for me. I have to worry about my own 8 skills. I just let them cast whatever they want to... the AI is not bad. And if it is bad it is at least predictable. )

Posted By: Ubereil

Re: Wishlist - 09/12/06 05:23 PM

Personally I hated the Guildwars fightingstyle. You just pressed alt (or whatever target closest was), then once in a while you pressed 1 and 2 for skills, and that was the whole fighting. The fights themselves usually lasted way too long. If I have to fight (peacefull resolutions for the win!), I want to do something in it, apart from pressing a few buttons.

Übereil
Posted By: Tutamun

Re: Wishlist - 09/12/06 06:23 PM

Quote:

Personally I hated the Guildwars fightingstyle. You just pressed alt (or whatever target closest was), then once in a while you pressed 1 and 2 for skills, and that was the whole fighting. The fights themselves usually lasted way too long. If I have to fight (peacefull resolutions for the win!), I want to do something in it, apart from pressing a few buttons.




How do you do things in a computer game without pressing a few buttons?

Are you talking about the Guild vs. Guild fights lasting too long? That can be. Never done them. But probably not since you would not win a single fight like that. If it is fights against monsters that last too long then you are using the wrong tactics. At least in the places I've been. Targeting the nearest enemy won't get you to the pesky healer who makes your fights last for ever. Or is someone standing at the back blinding you so you don't do much damage? You have to choose the right target and use the right skills at the right time.

Yes, it's only pressing a few buttons... but you have to press the right buttons and put the right skills on those buttons before a fight. If you see it does not work you can always go back and take other skills with you to better cope with the enemies that you will meet.

Oh, and Guild Wars is not a 'classic' single player RPG. It is mainly about fighting... either NPC monsters or other people... but it has a nice story campaign.
Posted By: lepel

Re: Wishlist - 09/12/06 08:58 PM

Quote:

Personally I hated the Guildwars fightingstyle. You just pressed alt (or whatever target closest was), then once in a while you pressed 1 and 2 for skills, and that was the whole fighting. The fights themselves usually lasted way too long. If I have to fight (peacefull resolutions for the win!), I want to do something in it, apart from pressing a few buttons.

Übereil




Well obviously this is your opinion.
But guild wars had 8 skills not 2. Maybe you didn't unlock enough skills ?
the PvP fights could last (too) long but the main reason was that alot of people were scared and didn't want to rush into the attack.
To me guild wars only got interesting when I had enough skills that could be used together. And to become good at the game you did have to use all 8 skills.
but I agree the locking on was lame and I don't want to see another guild wars else I could just reinstall it or buy an expansion.

Posted By: Zephyrus

Re: Wishlist - 09/12/06 10:25 PM

I think games like the Jedi Knight series and Rune are an excellent example to follow when considering combat. For proof of that their systems really do work, check out the cult following they've obtained while still having 0 advertising or exposure. Couple this with what you see in the original Gothic game, and I think you could have a hit!


Let's look at it this way from a bottom-up design perspective:

You target an enemy by clicking on them. From this, pressing on the WASD you can sidestep around the target in a 360 angle or move forward and backward. Clicking causes you to swipe your weapon - and depending on if you are currently moving in any direction you will swipe differently. Let me elaborate more on this.

If you are currently sidestepping while you click, you will slash side to side. If you are move forward, you will thrust and do overhead attacks. If you are walking backwards, you will do lower attacks on the legs and torso. If you are standing still, you will do a possible combination of any of these attacks. If you swipe while walking forwards(pressing W), and subsequently follow up with an A, then an S, and a D, you will do a round-house type move.

By right-clicking, you parry - and if you parry at a certain timing you will temporarily 'disarm' or throw off the enemy's guard(think Soul Calibur's 'guard impact').

You can hold down shift and then press left-click, and you will kick your opponent. If you hold down right click, and then press shift you will attempt to grab your opponent. If you are successful in grabbing them, you will throw them to the ground. When the opponent is on the ground, you can attempt to perform a "finishing move"(decapitate with an axe, stab them in the chest with your sword, whatever). Of course, if they are not heavily wounded they will get up before you can perform this finishing move.



Interesting? Maybe?
Posted By: Raze

Re: Wishlist - 10/12/06 01:27 AM

pressing on the WASD you can sidestep around the target in a 360 angle

So these are first person (or over-the-shoulder) perspective games? I don't think this level of control would work as well 3rd person, or in a party based game (if Larian continues with the party / summoning dolls from BD). Besides, I really, really wouldn't want to have to press a key or click a button for every step, swing or block in a fight (though some variety in attacks could be nice).

IMO the only reason to micromanage combat is if combat is the focus of the game.
Posted By: elgi

Re: Wishlist - 10/12/06 02:00 AM

Quote:

IMO the only reason to micromanage combat is if combat is the focus of the game.



Exactly!

Other than that, I detest the locking on opponents and then walking around them... the directional buttons (WASD) should just do what they are supposed to do - move your up, down, left and right. If you start dancing around your enemy, I think there is a very obvious break between fighting and normal gameplay.

If it becomes an active fighting system, I'd say do it simple... left click for attacking, maybe different attacking styles depending on the WASD key you press and the direction you move the mouse to. And also the skills should have an effect, too. An unexperienced fighter won't fight as excellent as an experienced one.
Right click for blocking or using the secondary weapon (btw, vice versa if you play a left handed character . Feel free to add some combinations of left and right buttons for making some nice combos, but I hope not too complicated.

@Raze:
I highly doubt that the old fighting system from DD and BD will be used... it's just not a very good idea in a 3D game with adjustable camera view - and from the screenshots I suppose that will be the case. Imagine you are walking in FPS of the main character (if there is more than one anyway)... and a fight starts. In BD you have the iso view and have a nice overview over the scenery and the opponents even if they are behind you. That is not the case in FPS view. So, I am afraid it will be a more active fighting system where you have to fight actually.
I'd be fine with that - if you could play the game without having to fight at all.
Posted By: Raze

Re: Wishlist - 10/12/06 04:29 AM

In BD you have the iso view and have a nice overview over the scenery and the opponents even if they are behind you. That is not the case in FPS view.

Just one of the many reasons the first person perspective sucks for RPGs.


So, I am afraid it will be a more active fighting system where you have to fight actually.

That would be tedious, and unless Larian cuts back on the number of opponents quit a bit compared to DD/BD, likely carpal tunnel inducing.
Posted By: Elliot_Kane

Re: Wishlist - 10/12/06 05:34 AM

Quote:

Just one of the many reasons the first person perspective sucks for RPGs.




Absolutely agreed!
Posted By: Nemisis_Dragon

Re: Wishlist - 10/12/06 09:07 AM

In Antwort auf:

In Antwort auf:

Just one of the many reasons the first person perspective sucks for RPGs.




Absolutely agreed!




I can't agree, it works very nice. Best example for a party based RPG I know is KOTOR. Time has passed since days of Ultima or Baldur's Gate RPGs, which use the ISO-view, so it's not a bad thing, if you use 1st/3rd person perspectives in current games. The question is if we really need a party in Larian's next RPG...
Posted By: Ubereil

Re: Wishlist - 10/12/06 10:05 AM

About Guildwars, I got tired pretty soon, and only got to level 7 or 8 (after the entire academy (or whatever the first place was called)) you were level 5 IIRC. The thing is, a walk that would take half a minute without monsters took five minutes because of monsters. Fighting one monster took half a minute. And at this stage of the game you had pretty much eight skills, and those where the ones you used. You couldn't do much in the ways of combos with those limited skills...

Zephyrus idea acually sounds kind of interesting, since it sounds fun and not too difficult to pull of pretty well. It allso sounds realistic, which is something most RPG's fail on when it comes to fighting...

My feeling about battles in most RPG's is that there's way too many of them, and they're boring/simplistic ie fights in most RPG's are a real pain. The best fighting system I've seen in a game (I like) so far is Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines, which felt pretty FPS to me, but at least you felt active during those fights, even if it was only rightclick to activate celerity/potence/whatever and then go nuts on leftclicking.

My feeling about an active combatsystem isn't that it's the combatsystem that is the problem, it's the ammount of fights. Because fights still shouldn't be the focus of the game, and therefore not exaggregated (think KotOR).

Übereil
Posted By: AlrikFassbauer

Re: Wishlist - 10/12/06 12:14 PM

In Antwort auf:

For proof of that their systems really do work, check out the cult following they've obtained while still having 0 advertising or exposure.




Well, yes, you might be right, but the temple of elemental evil or the siege of avalon also have "cults", small yet very active sects, so to say.


Posted By: Draghermosran

Re: Wishlist - 10/12/06 12:22 PM

I like the Dark Messiah of Might & Magic combat style, yes it's an FPS/RPG hybrid game but:
- just bashing your mouse button results in flurry, fast but powerless attacks
- stronger attacks need a powerup time (holding a button for 2 seconds)
- You need to block attacks your self
- special moves need you to perform extra actions, running, crouching...

I like this because combat has a strong focus on your knowledge of the game and judgement, when to strike when to block. What spell to use to certain enemies. Opposed to the Diablo style where anything is good as long your stats and gear are high enough. click click click click click click click click click click health potion click click click click click click health potion click click <-- just isn't interesting combat.

other good points are:
- you do not need to worry about how many npc's you an render without lag
- you can develop unique behaviours to enemies..
Posted By: lepel

Re: Wishlist - 10/12/06 12:22 PM

Quote:


My feeling about battles in most RPG's is that there's way too many of them, and they're boring/simplistic ie fights in most RPG's are a real pain.
...
My feeling about an active combatsystem isn't that it's the combatsystem that is the problem, it's the ammount of fights. Because fights still shouldn't be the focus of the game, and therefore not exaggregated (think KotOR).
Übereil



My point excactly. This is the reason that if the developpers think its important it should be worked out.
It doesn't have to mean for me they should seriously cut back on the fights, but just find a reason to keep them interesting and challenging.
(Fights shouldn't be the focus, but in RPGs these days it mostly is)
Posted By: lepel

Re: Wishlist - 10/12/06 12:30 PM

Quote:

I like the Dark Messiah of Might & Magic combat style, yes it's an FPS/RPG hybrid game but:
- just bashing your mouse button results in flurry, fast but powerless attacks
- stronger attacks need a powerup time (holding a button for 2 seconds)
- You need to block attacks your self
- special moves need you to perform extra actions, running, crouching...




The basic idea was there but the game couldn't convince me.
It didn't feel natural at all (this is my personal opinion)
But then again I only played the demo (I didn't buy the game because I didn't like the demo at all)
Posted By: AlrikFassbauer

Re: Wishlist - 10/12/06 12:50 PM

In Antwort auf:

My feeling about battles in most RPG's is that there's way too many of them, and they're boring/simplistic ie fights in most RPG's are a real pain.

[...]

My feeling about an active combatsystem isn't that it's the combatsystem that is the problem, it's the ammount of fights. Because fights still shouldn't be the focus of the game, and therefore not exaggregated (think KotOR).

Übereil




One of the few times I agree with you, Übereil.

In my humble opinion, combbat is far too much emphasized.

And the extreme version of that is Blizzards megasellers : They are so much defining the whole genre (simply because they were so popular), that now everyone - especuially those who don't know many older titles - might believe that combat / hack&slay is what an RPG defines !

"It has no combat in it, so it's no *real* RPG" ?


I know, the huge amount of fighting has a very strong tradition : The Dungeon Crawl. And I guess/assume that since the RPG genre was very much defined through early dungeon-crawl - like games or P&P adventures, many people (I guess) assume that an RPG has to contain a *lot* of combat !

So, the Action-RPG fraction and the Dungeon Crawl fraction unite, at this pecific point. And I assume they are just too many for the non-combat or diplomatic/stealth fraction.

Popularity defines. Or, as we say here in Germany : Millions of flies cannot be wrong" (a very cynical saying, I know).

And that's why PS:T is so much unique (and perhaps even the reason why the sales of it weren't too impressive) : It is has a strong orientation against combat ! (Although some at RPGWatch say it has a very weak implementation of the "stealth way".)


By the way, I'm still playing TOEE at the moment, and I'm still quite impressed how many non-combat options it has ! - Assumed you build up social skills as well !


Posted By: LewsTherinKinslayer13

Re: Wishlist - 10/12/06 08:44 PM

I like Jedi Knight style, where you click the mouse to use your light saber.
Posted By: Khamul

Re: Wishlist - 10/12/06 08:53 PM

but I like my fingers so I don't like button bashing
Posted By: Raze

Re: Wishlist - 10/12/06 09:16 PM

...click click click click health potion click click <-- just isn't interesting combat.

An active combat system would require a great deal more clicking, and I fail to see how turning combat into a test of coordination and reaction time makes things either interesting or more realistic.

Making combat interesting should be done my adding tactical considerations and making sure a straight frontal assault isn't always an effective method. Micromanaging combat is the opposite of that.
Posted By: Zephyrus

Re: Wishlist - 10/12/06 09:47 PM

Quote:

...click click click click health potion click click <-- just isn't interesting combat.

An active combat system would require a great deal more clicking, and I fail to see how turning combat into a test of coordination and reaction time makes things either interesting or more realistic.





Aren't real-life fights a test of coordination, reaction time, and strength?
Posted By: Tutamun

Re: Wishlist - 10/12/06 09:56 PM

Quote:

You target an enemy by clicking on them. From this, pressing on the WASD you can sidestep around the target in a 360 angle or move forward and backward. Clicking causes you to swipe your weapon - and depending on if you are currently moving in any direction you will swipe differently. Let me elaborate more on this.




That would be nothing for me.

If you put 'slash' on key 1 and 'roundswing' on key 2 and 'overheadslash' on key 3, etc. And give me a pause button... then it would be ok. At least without the 'locking on'. But if I have to remember in what order I have to press WASD and Mouse1/2 then I'll uninstall the game rather quick.
Posted By: elgi

Re: Wishlist - 10/12/06 10:02 PM

Quote:

Aren't real-life fights a test of coordination, reaction time, and strength?



That's my favorite argument as well.

But on the other hand, why do you have attributes and skills then? Why do the characters have fighting skills if it's up to the player how well they fight if they fight? And shouldn't be magic much more complicated then as well?

That's why I'd say a basic fighting system - which can be done in FPS view. But it should be playable with a few clicks, e.g. one for the left arm and one for the right arm.

And btw, I wouldn't mind if the same goes for using magic. Like having to draw some runes into thei air in order to throw a fireball for example. But I guess people wouldn't like that at all.
Posted By: Draghermosran

Re: Wishlist - 10/12/06 10:58 PM

Als antwoord op:

...click click click click health potion click click <-- just isn't interesting combat.

An active combat system would require a great deal more clicking, and I fail to see how turning combat into a test of coordination and reaction time makes things either interesting or more realistic.

Making combat interesting should be done my adding tactical considerations and making sure a straight frontal assault isn't always an effective method. Micromanaging combat is the opposite of that.




It's not as much a comment on the amount of clicking, rather the simplicity of it, for instance in many RPG's shields are there only for adding armor points they aren't really used as a shield.

The howto of the combat system should be plain and simple, use a limited amount of buttons. But the execution should be more complex. Say you target an enemy, just click to attack and keep your finger ready to hit the healthpotion bind is to simple. Your survival shouldn't depend on the use of potions, but on the knowhow of when to attack when to defend, who to attack -> strategy, tactics. I would even prefer potions to be scarce, something to save till you'll really need it, a boss for instance. Attack/Defence is quite simple, do not swing your weapon if your opponent does to, you'll get hurt. Swing after you blocked its attack, or when cuaght offguard. Aim to perform those 'special' moves rather then going beserk on your mouse/keyboard.

Combat should just another puzzle to solve, what enemy can be best defeated by what means, powerfull creatures come in small numbers, your actions should be measured and timed. While weak creatures who come in greater numbers should be finished of as fast as possible. Few blows of the powerfull opponent really hurt, try to avoid them. While you'll never be able to defend the many, so reduce their attack power fast. It's not about your typing skills, but your mind. In FPS games like Rainbow Six you won't rush in and empty your clips as fast as possible, the same should count for a good RPG, rainbow six has a lot better atmophere than for instance quake does. A good combat system will add to the atmosphere of the game.
Posted By: TheDivine

Re: Wishlist - 10/12/06 10:59 PM

i really liked the robin hood: legend of sherwood like fighting. Ne1 played that 1?
Posted By: AlrikFassbauer

Re: Wishlist - 10/12/06 11:26 PM

In Antwort auf:

Aren't real-life fights a test of coordination, reaction time, and strength?




Depends on the fight.

Chess can be a fight, too ...

Posted By: Zephyrus

Re: Wishlist - 10/12/06 11:55 PM

Quote:



That would be nothing for me.

If you put 'slash' on key 1 and 'roundswing' on key 2 and 'overheadslash' on key 3, etc. And give me a pause button... then it would be ok. At least without the 'locking on'. But if I have to remember in what order I have to press WASD and Mouse1/2 then I'll uninstall the game rather quick.




It depends on how the rest of the control scheme would work. If the mouse controlled the camera, simply by keeping your 'mouse' upon said creature for more than 1 second, and if they are within x meters(or units) of your character, they become locked until you move the mouse outside of a bounding box of the creature.

The system I described is pretty much "slash on key 1", and complex moves a "logical combination of WASD keys in combination of slash on key 1". Such as if you wanted to lunge forward, press W in rapid succession twice followed by the "key 1". I think it'd be a rather simple yet dynamic system that would allow enough tactics and skills/stats to still come into play - thus removing a lot of the "twitch" factor while still feeling well-paced.

But maybe it's just me
Posted By: Elliot_Kane

Re: Wishlist - 11/12/06 12:45 AM

The basic thing is, are we talking about a role playing game or a fighting game? With all due respect to those of you who want an intricate and highly reactive combat system, the main emphasis in any RPG truly deserving of the name is characterisation & story - not having many and varied ways you can hit things.

There are plenty of good games out there where the point is to go around and shoot or hit things, and I've played a ton of them myself so I'm certainly not against them - but they are not RPGs.

Yes, there is a ton of fighting in most RPGs, but fighting should never be the main point of it.
Posted By: lepel

Re: Wishlist - 11/12/06 01:06 AM

Quote:

The basic thing is, are we talking about a role playing game or a fighting game? With all due respect to those of you who want an intricate and highly reactive combat system, the main emphasis in any RPG truly deserving of the name is characterisation & story - not having many and varied ways you can hit things.

There are plenty of good games out there where the point is to go around and shoot or hit things, and I've played a ton of them myself so I'm certainly not against them - but they are not RPGs.

Yes, there is a ton of fighting in most RPGs, but fighting should never be the main point of it.



Well the point of most people here is the same one you are making. And I'm just trying to say, if we have to fight make it interesting and challenging.
Does a "good fighting system" (different for all of us I guess) mean the game has to be all about fighting ? Offcourse not...
You said yourself that there is a ton of fighting in most RPGs, so wouldn't you want the fighting to be a positive point instead of a negative one ?
We can also be pretty sure that fights will take place in this new RPG. So if they are gonna put time into it, why shouldn't they try to make it fun.

I do realize that we are talking too much about this subject and we should better be thinking about other things as well.
Because there are some other ideas in this thread worth talking about.
for example NeroJB's post about property
Posted By: Elliot_Kane

Re: Wishlist - 11/12/06 01:58 AM

Quote:

Quote:

The basic thing is, are we talking about a role playing game or a fighting game? With all due respect to those of you who want an intricate and highly reactive combat system, the main emphasis in any RPG truly deserving of the name is characterisation & story - not having many and varied ways you can hit things.

There are plenty of good games out there where the point is to go around and shoot or hit things, and I've played a ton of them myself so I'm certainly not against them - but they are not RPGs.

Yes, there is a ton of fighting in most RPGs, but fighting should never be the main point of it.



Well the point of most people here is the same one you are making. And I'm just trying to say, if we have to fight make it interesting and challenging.
Does a "good fighting system" (different for all of us I guess) mean the game has to be all about fighting ? Offcourse not...
You said yourself that there is a ton of fighting in most RPGs, so wouldn't you want the fighting to be a positive point instead of a negative one ?
We can also be pretty sure that fights will take place in this new RPG. So if they are gonna put time into it, why shouldn't they try to make it fun.

I do realize that we are talking too much about this subject and we should better be thinking about other things as well.
Because there are some other ideas in this thread worth talking about.
for example NeroJB's post about property




A fight can be interesting and challenging without lots of button mashing.

The main problem though from my POV is balancing out the approaches so that someone who chooses to play as a spellcaster or sneaky-type is not seriously disadvantaged compared to a warrior.

The best example of the kind of system you are talking about that I have seen is TDK's Conan game, which involves a truly incredible number of moves using multiple mouse clicks in combination, plus the space bar and a couple of other keys. It's a fantastic game, but it's entirely based on Conan being a barbarian who goes around hitting everything until it falls over.

While it would be possible to create a single character RPG using such a system, it would only work as long as everyone played a warrior-type character because that is all the system is designed for.

It certainly wouldn't be possible with a party-based game, either, unless the computer controlled every other character, which would render it utterly pointless having a party in the first place.

Not that there's anything wrong with single character RPGs, it must be said, my own preferences aside. And if anyone can think of a way to have an intricate fighting system for warriors and an equally good system for spellcasters, rogues, etc, I will naturally withdraw all objections - and indeed applaud your ingenuity, because I can't think of a way to do it.

That all said - you're right that this is one of many issues, and there are plenty more also worthy of discussion.

I like the idea of property, too. Especially if you can pay builders to upgrade it or something You could start with a cottage and upgrade it to house, keep, small fort... a whole building tree, with each stage having more storage or other story advantages. Maybe the princess won't marry you if you don't have an impressive enough looking house or something It would be a good money soak and could add some advantages, like a large cottage might come with a herb garden which will produce stuff you can use with the Alchemy skill. One level could have a free hospital area which would improve your popularity/reputation with the locals... The possibilities are endless, and each would only really be a case of replacing one building with another. Or maybe modular add-ons. I'm no programmer nor even close, but that doesn't sound terribly complex to me, though I don't doubt it would involve a fair amount of work to implement...
Posted By: janggut

Re: Wishlist - 11/12/06 05:06 AM

Ok, now is my turn to give my 2 cents on what Lar asked about levels & all that.

Quote:

Our current idea is to connect different levels to each other through specific "gates" ....

On the topic - Oblivion/NWN/Baldur's Gate load in the interior of houses as different levels. Gothic doesn't. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages - which do you prefer ?

Lar




i haven't played nro seen Gothic so i can't comment on that. However if it feels a bit like Dungeon Siege where u can move from open space to enclosure (for example, cave) without loading, that would be most useful. & i'm not talking about it being immersive & all that. Useful because if the enclosure (house, for example) is not a big space to load, then it should be seamless as it connects in 'real-time' to the outside world. Some examples given by a number of members here are great, such as hiding from Orcs in houses. For me, it'll be great for stealth especially when one plays rogue & wants to sneak into a house, so to move into the house seamlessly (with no reset of NPC placement in the house) knowing where the occupants are at that time would make it very feasible & real.

In the same vein, i wonder if loading of levels will mean resetting the previous level(s). In the case of Fable TLC, the previous levels are reset so u have repawning of enemies to fight. While it's nice at first & also good for levelling up, it gets tedious very fast too, i feel.

So to cap it all up, my preference is for integration between houses & outside world to be seamless.

As for the subject of perspectives, i would like to state my preference one again - no first person mode. I keep getting headaches no matter how i try to get myself adjusted, so i really really hope Larian won't implement this.

As Larian RPGs consist more than just combat alone (though combat makes a huge chunk of the game), i hope the combat is not too heavily emphasised. If possible, please allow for non-combat solutions (sneak, diplomacy, distraction).

I feel that for combat, a hybrid of NWN & Dungeon Siege will be just nice, not too much yet not too rudimentary. A semi-automated combat will be nice so it won't be twitch-oriented (Diablo2 comes to mind) with hotkeys (like NWN) to initiate special move or action.

Now about quests, i feel that to prevent game-breakers, maybe Larian can introduce quest locking. Once players level up to certain number, new quests will be unlocked. Since the world is all opened right from the start, players will need to re-visit certain NPCs for newly unlocked quests. This will make interaction more than just one-shot, as is the case with almost all CRPGs (except maybe KOTOR, which has u to travel back to the previous worlds to complete new quests & all that). With that, the game, i feel, does not actually need an army of NPCs, rather create more depth on the limited number of them. This, i hope, will enrich the depth of character hence staying true to role-playing namesake.

So far what i have read in regards to the game in terms of its engine are all about graphics graphics graphics. I think it is important, however it is not the only medium to enhance game atmosphere. One thing that i have mentioned in the past, in similarly themed threads like this one, is the emphasis of sound. So what about it?

Instead of solely relying on visual clues for the game, sound can also be included. Say for example, inside a castle, one doesn't know what is going on in any room as none has windows. So what one can do is to eavesdrop (place ear on the door, for example) to learn if there is anyone inside or to learn of something new.

Also, for stealth, sound can be important too. When there is a fight, it should be noisy, so the noise should attract authorities to investigate. Vice versa, sound can be utilised by the players to know if there are soldiers nearby or whatever so they can rely on other sense besides sight.

I have tons more ideas for sound but i can't recall more right now. Maybe later.

ok, that's it for now. my 2 cents.
Posted By: Raze

Re: Wishlist - 11/12/06 07:45 AM

Aren't real-life fights a test of coordination, reaction time, and strength?

Yes, but adding key/button combinations to a game's controls still isn't going to make the combat more realistic. There may be more finger coordination and twitch reflexes required, but it wouldn't approach anything close to realism.



Anyway, for a non-combat related wish (though I've mentioned it before);

If there is going to be an automap and a fog-of-war, I wish the map would only clear areas that are actually shown onscreen. The fog-of-war is handy keeping track of where you have explored, but in DD I had to start avoiding equipment with sight bonuses, so the area cleared as I walked would not be too much bigger than I could see.

Ideally I'd like to see a two-toned fog of war; places your character can see are half obscured by a grey fog, while only areas that have been shown on screen get completely cleared.
Posted By: Raze

Re: Wishlist - 11/12/06 07:46 AM

It's not as much a comment on the amount of clicking, rather the simplicity of it

Well the large increase in the number of clicks for some of the active fighting systems proposed is a problem for me. I'll take simplicity over carpal tunnel any day.


Say you target an enemy, just click to attack and keep your finger ready to hit the healthpotion bind is to simple. Your survival shouldn't depend on the use of potions, but on the knowhow of when to attack when to defend, who to attack -> strategy, tactics.

Your character should be the one who knows when to attack, and should be able to execute the strategy indicated when instructed to attack.


Attack/Defence is quite simple, do not swing your weapon if your opponent does to, you'll get hurt. Swing after you blocked its attack, or when cuaght offguard.

What is the point of your character having an agility stat if your button pushing timing is what counts? Why have combat skills in the game if the fighting system is based on your own hand-eye coordination?


Combat should just another puzzle to solve

I would much, much rather do that by developing my character and choosing the best skills and weapons, than by hitting keys in the right combination at the right time.


It's not about your typing skills, but your mind.

You can talk philosophically about how these active fighting systems allow greater control, strategy, etc, but practically I have not seen a description that doesn't ultimately boil down to typing skills.


A good combat system will add to the atmosphere of the game.

The problem here is the differing definitions of 'good'.
Also, I don't want the combat system to add atmosphere to an RPG; that is what the story, dialog, music, books, graphics etc are for. The combat system should fit the setting and not get in the way, or become the focus of the game.
Posted By: Nemisis_Dragon

Re: Wishlist - 11/12/06 10:12 AM

In Antwort auf:


On the topic - Oblivion/NWN/Baldur's Gate load in the interior of houses as different levels. Gothic doesn't. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages - which do you prefer ?
Lar




To save performance, I would say the Baldur's Gate method is the better one. As you said, Oblivion does the same. So you can design very highpoly house environments without having the whole world loading in the background. Gothic's houses look imho very low detailed and don't have so many things to manipulate. And all things are "stuck", not much options to move/interact with them.
Posted By: AlrikFassbauer

Re: Wishlist - 11/12/06 11:07 AM

In Antwort auf:

The basic thing is, are we talking about a role playing game or a fighting game?




The best thought in this thread yet !

Article on RPGWatch : Where is the R in role playing ? (With 41 comments this far.)


Ah, by the way, I would have nothing against castles to be implemented as levels on their own - in contrast to houses, which I'd like to have as parts of the in-game world.

Posted By: Lostsheep

Re: Wishlist - 11/12/06 11:21 AM

Hello,long time no see!Returned,though been watching forums all along,now that next title up for discussion.

At this stage I just want to agree with Raze and others of the same mind on the subject of combat.

IMHO combat skills should come from the careful building and nurturing of your character as it should be he/she who knows how to fight as opposed to the keyboard skills/speed of reaction of the player.

There are many hack and slash games on the market where players can use their own physical skills in the game's combat,but I am of the opinion that fans of are looking forward to what might be seen as a "Real" RPG with the accent on the "R"!

Also,as the sort of game I'm hoping Larian is producing,is likely to appeal to many players of all ages.Some of them may not have the co-ordination and/or speed of reflexes required by combat ruled by keyboard/mouse skills.So there should be a way for them to be effctive in combat without lighning reflexes.


Posted By: Draghermosran

Re: Wishlist - 11/12/06 12:10 PM

Your character should be the one who knows when to attack, and should be able to execute the strategy indicated when instructed to attack.

I want a more active role in the game, mark the usage of the word role I want to defeat my enemies not the AI, as I want to solve puzzles, and I want to explore. To play the role of warrior, I have to do the fighting. Does that make sense?


What is the point of your character having an agility stat if your button pushing timing is what counts? Why have combat skills in the game if the fighting system is based on your own hand-eye coordination?

who says there needs to be an agility stat? Skills are just the same in real life, they need to be tought they need extra effort to execute.


I would much, much rather do that by developing my character and choosing the best skills and weapons, than by hitting keys in the right combination at the right time.

It does not have to be that complex, this isn't mortal combat I'm talking about you only need few actions:
* attack
* defend
* jump
* crouch
* run

run + attack would result in a powerfull blow, nothing hard about that, or am I wrong?

The problem here is the differing definitions of 'good'.
Also, I don't want the combat system to add atmosphere to an RPG; that is what the story, dialog, music, books, graphics etc are for. The combat system should fit the setting and not get in the way, or become the focus of the game.


Combat should add to the atmosphere, why not? why can't and story, music, dialog ... and combat add to the atmosphere, or should combat only be there to up your stats and solve quests?


Posted By: elgi

Re: Wishlist - 11/12/06 12:47 PM

Quote:

I want a more active role in the game, mark the usage of the word role I want to defeat my enemies not the AI, as I want to solve puzzles, and I want to explore. To play the role of warrior, I have to do the fighting. Does that make sense?

[...]

who says there needs to be an agility stat? Skills are just the same in real life, they need to be tought they need extra effort to execute.



To answer your first question: No, it doesn't make sense... at least not for an RPG in my opinion. Unless the magic system is as challenging as the fighting system... or the dialogue system... or the sensual system... or the trading system... or or or.

The "Role" in RPG implies and explies that you are playing a role... I have played many roles so far in my RPGs in my life, yet I don't have most of the abilities I used. That's why there are attributes and skills, as I tried to mention before. You don't have to really run in an RPG... it is done by the game based on your attributes and skills. If that wasn't the case, you would have to press left and right quickly like in the old summer games and decathlon games.
You don't have to know much about ancient lore in an RPG... your character does know it and you just use the knowledge... and finally cast magic for example.
You don't have to be the most beautiful woman in the world... your character might be so in the game and use it in conversations.
You don't have to be a good trader in an RPG... the game does that for you based on your skills.

That's why you are playing the role... your task is to apply to that role and have fun with that. Generally, it is not your job to do all the things your character is doing.

Thus, I don't see any valid reason why only one aspect of the game - in this case fighting - should get much more attention than the others. If you want a rather complicated fighting system (in the opinion of those who don't want that), I do want a more complex magic or trading or dialogue system. I think I can talk better than fight... so, I want to use that in the game to have more success and eventually more fun.

But as I tried to explain, that would not be the point in an RPG... because people who are not that agile - and, yes, there are such people - might want to play as a fighter, too. Or people who are as witty as an ant might want to play an intelligent character as well. And they have to be able to do that regardless of their abilities in real life - that's what ROLE means for me in RPG.

That's the reason why I am not a fan of tweaking up the fighting system. It's not because I couldn't handle it but rather a matter of principle.
Posted By: lepel

Re: Wishlist - 11/12/06 12:49 PM

Your character should be the one who knows when to attack, and should be able to execute the strategy indicated when instructed to attack.

I also want a more active role in the game. If my character knows how to do everything they could call the game: "spectator" and let us see a complete walkthrough movie.

What is the point of your character having an agility stat if your button pushing timing is what counts? Why have combat skills in the game if the fighting system is based on your own hand-eye coordination?
for example: you can swing alittle bit faster or the recovery time between attacks is smaller. your second sentence doesn't make any sense to me.
Thats like saying to people who play FPS games that they don't need different guns with different power and speed.


I would much, much rather do that by developing my character and choosing the best skills and weapons, than by hitting keys in the right combination at the right time.
Quote:


It does not have to be that complex, this isn't mortal combat I'm talking about you only need few actions:
* attack
* defend
* jump
* crouch
* run
run + attack would result in a powerfull blow, nothing hard about that, or am I wrong?



this has been my point all along. It shouldn't become that hard, just hard enough to be able to keep the fights challenging.

The problem here is the differing definitions of 'good'.
Also, I don't want the combat system to add atmosphere to an RPG; that is what the story, dialog, music, books, graphics etc are for. The combat system should fit the setting and not get in the way, or become the focus of the game.

Again something that doesn't make any sense to me. Are you describing a movie ?
Offcourse the fighting shouldn't become the focus of the game. noone in this thread ever claimed it should...
Exactly why can't the fighting be positive ? So should it either be neutral or bad ?



Posted By: lepel

Re: Wishlist - 11/12/06 01:02 PM

Quote:


Thus, I don't see any valid reason why only one aspect of the game - in this case fighting - should get much more attention than the others. If you want a rather complicated fighting system (in the opinion of those who don't want that), I do want a more complex magic or trading or dialogue system. I think I can talk better than fight... so, I want to use that in the game to have more success and eventually more fun.




I would want the magic, trading and dialogue system to be more complex as well.
But when thinking about the last RPGs I played, I have to come to the same conclusion as before.
If the developpers think fighting is that important, they should work it out further. In the last RPGs I played it really bothered me. (much more as the simple dialogue or trading systems bothered me)
Posted By: isorun

Re: Wishlist - 11/12/06 01:27 PM

Ahh, another thing pops my mind! Mounts!!!! Horses, Dragons, and for the dwarves: imps (they are about the same size arent they?), Lizards (How fast would Goemoe run?), really alot of different mounts, ofcours this would only be usefull in big worlds.
I would also like to see Pets (and if possible: the ability to give them names)
and stables to store your mounts and pets.

Posted By: elgi

Re: Wishlist - 11/12/06 02:26 PM

Quote:

lepel wrote:

I would want the magic, trading and dialogue system to be more complex as well.
But when thinking about the last RPGs I played, I have to come to the same conclusion as before.
If the developpers think fighting is that important, they should work it out further. In the last RPGs I played it really bothered me. (much more as the simple dialogue or trading systems bothered me)




Well, you have quoted me... but the quote goes on actually. With this:

But as I tried to explain, that would not be the point in an RPG... because people who are not that agile - and, yes, there are such people - might want to play as a fighter, too. Or people who are as witty as an ant might want to play an intelligent character as well. And they have to be able to do that regardless of their abilities in real life - that's what ROLE means for me in RPG.

So, you want a nice fighting system, Alrik wants a nice system for writing poems, Ragon wants a nice magic system with too long spells, I want a great talking system... but at the end, it has to be playable by all players. Therefore, all parts must be usable by anyone. And an RPG is actually and ultimatively exactly that - no need to be agile, you let your character do that for you.
Posted By: AlrikFassbauer

Re: Wishlist - 11/12/06 02:34 PM

In Antwort auf:

Exactly why can't the fighting be positive ?




Fight ? Positive ?

Sounds like someone who has grown up an a society where fighting and violence is generally accepted as a means to solve problems.

In other cultures it is not. These cultures would rather regard fighting as something awful, just because you destroy, kill, injure, frighten, etc. .

For those who don't care or believe in the "law of the strongest", fighting will *always* be something positive. That's why we have in real life a type of gun with the actual name "peacemaker" !

This "Peracemaker" is imho the ultimate symbol for the difference of cultural perception of fight : To some, peace is then when one of both is dead. For others, peace is achieved when both are happy (if possible).

This is a deep cultural difference I suspect.

Posted By: Foetsy

Re: Wishlist - 11/12/06 02:34 PM

I don't think a complicated system with the gamer fighting instead of the character would work. I'm afraid it will be as in a Fifa game. You suck the first few days, get the hang of it after a week and after a month the highest difficulty setting won't even be a challenge.
You can dream about a perfect fighting system, but never will something like that be complicated enough after a while. And personally I get sick after repeating something like that over and over again (as playing matches in fifa when you are doing something like a season or career or whatever, or fighting every battle in (Rome) Total war). 'Get on with it, get back to the game'.

With magic it is easier, than you really can make a strategy (if there enough different spells available). To resemble something like that in the fighting system, you would need different moves that have different effects. But, to be honest, I can't picture something like that in my mind very well.
Posted By: Draghermosran

Re: Wishlist - 11/12/06 02:46 PM

Elgi, I personnaly do not get why some of us here connect a more challenging combat system with real life agility? There is no more agility required for such a combat than for pressing the right button for a spell or a potion like it's done in so many RPG's.

I've always tought of myself I wasn't the best gamer, I was really bad at FPS and Action games. I tought it was because I hadn't sufficient coordination or agility, but nothing was less true, I just didn't think. The handling of a game is something you grow customed to quite easy, mastering that is a question of mind. Offcourse games like Quake take more than just thinking, it takes reflexes, real hand eye coordination but those are competive fps games, this is a singleplayer RPG we are talking about.
Posted By: elgi

Re: Wishlist - 11/12/06 02:48 PM

Quote:

This is a deep cultural difference I suspect.



I rather think you are over-analyzing there a bit...

Interpret it like this: If there is fighting in the game - and there will be - why not make it nice part of the game? The fact that you don't like fighting doesn't mean that it has to be a very boring part of the game because then those who don't have a problem with fighting in a game would be treated worse than you.

I do think that if there is fighting it should be done nice... so that you actually don't detest using that means. However, the problem is more like "How does it have to be?" rather than "Should fighting be nice or not?"
Posted By: elgi

Re: Wishlist - 11/12/06 02:53 PM

Quote:

I've always tought of myself I wasn't the best gamer, I was really bad at FPS and Action games. I tought it was because I hadn't sufficient coordination or agility, but nothing was less true, I just didn't think. The handling of a game is something you grow customed to quite easy, mastering that is a question of mind. Offcourse games like Quake take more than just thinking, it takes reflexes, real hand eye coordination but those are competive fps games, this is a singleplayer RPG we are talking about.



Actually I think that I am good FPS and Action player... so, I wouldn't have a problem with a Quake RPG. But unfortunately, there ARE people who think that pressing more than one or two buttons at a time in a hectic real time fight - and probably in FPS view - is challenging. There are also people who think that combining runes or drawing symbols into the air for using magic is challenging.

What we have to think about is: What is the game supposed to be? If it's a rather action based RPG-like game like Dark Messiah of M&M, fine... use a nice combat system. But if it's going to be a "real" RPG, you have to apply to the RPG basics... that is playing a role without having to really do the things you do with your character. Generally, this aspect is not paid attention to in most so called RPGs... which is a pity in my opinion.
Posted By: lepel

Re: Wishlist - 11/12/06 02:56 PM

Quote:

I don't think a complicated system with the gamer fighting instead of the character would work. I'm afraid it will be as in a Fifa game. You suck the first few days, get the hang of it after a week and after a month the highest difficulty setting won't even be a challenge.
You can dream about a perfect fighting system, but never will something like that be complicated enough after a while. And personally I get sick after repeating something like that over and over again (as playing matches in fifa when you are doing something like a season or career or whatever, or fighting every battle in (Rome) Total war). 'Get on with it, get back to the game'.

With magic it is easier, than you really can make a strategy (if there enough different spells available). To resemble something like that in the fighting system, you would need different moves that have different effects. But, to be honest, I can't picture something like that in my mind very well.




Thats why I suggested a combination of Gothic 3 and Guild Wars.
In Guild Wars there are skills to be used in the same way you would use a spell.
Thus thinking about wich skills/spells to use would become a very strategic decision. And as the combat system would become more complex so would the magic system.
If you wouldn't like complex fights it could be easily solved with a more complex difficulty setting.
So putting the fights on "easy" just would mean they would become less complex or require less hand eye coordination or reflexes.
but there would be more settings to put on easy or hard as you please.
for example I don't want a compass that points to where I should go. If it pointed to the North I would be happy. This might not be the case for other people so they would put this on easy.
This is just an example offcourse
Posted By: lepel

Re: Wishlist - 11/12/06 03:01 PM

Quote:


Fight ? Positive ?
Sounds like someone who has grown up an a society where fighting and violence is generally accepted as a means to solve problems.
In other cultures it is not. These cultures would rather regard fighting as something awful, just because you destroy, kill, injure, frighten, etc. .
For those who don't care or believe in the "law of the strongest", fighting will *always* be something positive. That's why we have in real life a type of gun with the actual name "peacemaker" !
This "Peracemaker" is imho the ultimate symbol for the difference of cultural perception of fight : To some, peace is then when one of both is dead. For others, peace is achieved when both are happy (if possible).
This is a deep cultural difference I suspect.




You ripped it completely out of its context. So people that play games that contain violence and like the game, are violent people in your eyes ?

Elgi already explained it properly so no need to do it again. (Thanks Elgi )

Posted By: lepel

Re: Wishlist - 11/12/06 03:13 PM

Quote:


Well, you have quoted me... but the quote goes on actually. With this:




I didn't quote the entire post because it wasn't relevant in the point I was making. I just wanted you (and others) to understand why I'm talking about the fighting and not about the other subjects.

About the "Role" in RPGs:
With a more complex fighting system it doesn't have to mean it would take the R out of RPG, and let me tell you why.
With a fighting system that contains more variations and more special moves (skills/spells) I would be able to pull of moves I would never be able to in real life.(and this by just pressing a few buttons) So basicly I'm not fighting myself I'm just telling my character what to do in the fight.
Would this make the game a Role Playing Fighting Game ? Perhaps
But does a more complex fighting system have to mean the other parts of the game
(dialogue, trading, property, etc.) have to be lesser options ?
I certainly hope not and I expect games to be able to become more complex in all their aspects.

Posted By: AlrikFassbauer

Re: Wishlist - 11/12/06 04:12 PM

In Antwort auf:

You ripped it completely out of its context. So people that play games that contain violence and like the game, are violent people in your eyes ?

Elgi already explained it properly so no need to do it again. (Thanks Elgi )





I'm like that. I think differently.

I am a different drum.



And now for something ... not entirely different.

At RPGWatch, there is cuurrently a discussion going on with the title "Why I love Gothic 3 and hate Oblivion"

This thread is insofar interesting as if it highlights and relatively seriously discusses the best and worst things of both games.
There is one point, however, I'd like to quote in here, because I felt it was interesting :

In Antwort auf:

2) The balancing problem...if you "poverlevel" only attributes which won't help you kill enemies (acrobatics, alchemy, smithing) the game will be hard, because enemies are stronger and stronger, but you still can't fight - on the other side...if you only level attributes for fighting the game is "too easy".




This is about Oblivion.

And this is imho how it shouldn't be, because in the last consequence (and I often think of "last consequences", no matter how weird they might appear to you), this results in a game that favours combat - because it is seemingly the more developed and polished part of it.

Like one arm is stronger than the other one.


Posted By: TheDivine

Re: Wishlist - 11/12/06 04:17 PM

CREATURES SHOULD NOT LEVEL WITH YOU, THAT IS LAME

heh, very important wish from me, that was so, SO lame in ablivion :S

another thing:

HITTING CREATURES WITH A BOW SHOULD DO MORE OR LESS DAMAGE DEPENDING WHERE YOU HIT HIM.

thank you

anyway i really agree with the title of that threat, i dont exactly hate oblivion but love Gothic 3 much more
Posted By: lepel

Re: Wishlist - 11/12/06 04:57 PM

Quote:


There is one point, however, I'd like to quote in here, because I felt it was interesting :
Quote:

2) The balancing problem...if you "poverlevel" only attributes which won't help you kill enemies (acrobatics, alchemy, smithing) the game will be hard, because enemies are stronger and stronger, but you still can't fight - on the other side...if you only level attributes for fighting the game is "too easy".



This is about Oblivion.
And this is imho how it shouldn't be, because in the last consequence (and I often think of "last consequences", no matter how weird they might appear to you), this reults in a game that favopurs combat - because it is seemingly the more developed and polished part of it.
Like one arm is stronger than the other one.




Well there is an "easy" solution for that problem:
Make the fighting attributes and the other attributes different.
So when you lvl you can add a certain amount of points to fighting attributes and some to the other attributes.
But not all on fighting or all on non fighting attributes.
This way the focus should be kept in balance since the points in the other attributes should really make a difference.
And a certain amount of points in any of the attributes should be something to look forward to because it could mean richer gameplay. (but fighting would become inevitable)

But a solution that might be better is to be able to spend the points exactly how you want.
And if you don't want to spend points in fighting and live the RPG live peacefully, you should be able to.
If all parts of the game were really complex and worked out well,
it would become more of a RPG since you could be able to choose for a fighter but you might as well choose for something completely different.
(Maybe a trader that wants to make money to start his own town or build his own castle) And if it would be really versatile,
missing out on one of these things (for example fighting) wouldn't even be such a big problem.
And for example as a trader you would be able to bribe some enemys to start attacking different enemys, win-win situation .
Or as some sort of politician you would be able to convince people to do this, while as a fighter you would choose something as: 'Do this or I'll kill you'.(Or just fight both enemys yourself)
And if you would build a town and it would become too big (for your ability in politics)
there should be some sort of rebellion and people (from your town) would want to get a different and better leader.
Or if your skill would be very high, it would be nice to be able to convince other citys to join your side and start your own kingdom.
(And complete quests for those citys to make sure they like you and will join you)
(something like united states or a union, help eachother in wars and lower taxes on the trades between the citys).
I don't know exactly how this could all be implemented into a RPG but imo it would be very nice and greatly boost the replayability of the game.
(that is if you don't hate the other professions. I'm someone that wants to try them all, see what suits me best and finish the game with that profession)
(Just examples of what could happen)

Also, you shoud only be able to receive some quests if your ability in something was high enough, while other quests would just be solved differently depending on your own choice.
(also to increase the replayability)
And maybe people that don't want to fight should also get some skills/spells but entirely different ones as fighers/magic users.
For example traders should be able to take some sort of trading skills with them like a permanent extra % when buying/selling items
or convincing some people that they should buy an item while they really dont need it.
Posted By: Uilleand

Re: Wishlist - 11/12/06 07:59 PM

OK...I really liked DD in its original form.

Things I want to see stay - the kitties, charms, the MUSIC

Things I'd love to see added...
1. Choices make a difference. Whether you're a fighter or a thief, or you're evil or good....what you do should have consequences
2. More non-combat options. Ok...my personal preference would to NOT have to kill all the animals that you ever come across. There's got to be another way to deal with wolves....but other options would be nice, too ... sneaking past enemies...charming your way in....seducing your way in...whatever..
3. Just more...of everything...the worst thing about DD was when you'd come to the border of the land and realize that no....you really couldn't keep going...I know, I know...you can't create an infinite game...I'm just wishing..LOL
Posted By: Raze

Re: Wishlist - 11/12/06 08:02 PM

It shouldn't become that hard, just hard enough to be able to keep the fights challenging.

Your idea of challenging is my idea of carpal tunnel inducing tedium.

Micromanaging fights just breaks down a simple interaction and allows you to control it in more detail. It lets you do things during the fight, but doesn't add anything. You still essentially have the same combat you didn't find interesting to start with, but with a distraction (hitting buttons at the correct time) to keep you occupied.

Instead of breaking combat down into components I'd like to see it made more complex, so you couldn't just give a warrior the biggest sword he can lift, to swing at every opponent until it stops moving. Enemy AI, resistances, vulnerabilities, terrain, etc could all be tweaked to allow/force more strategic combat.


Anyway, since nobody is likely to change their mind, I'll just say I hope Larian comes up with a way to make combat more interesting without resorting to micromanaging it.
Posted By: Draghermosran

Re: Wishlist - 11/12/06 09:03 PM

Als antwoord op:


Your idea of challenging is my idea of carpal tunnel inducing tedium.





Raze, this is not personal. Did you have carpal tunnel syndrome playing DD or BD? It had a lot of clicking, moving mouse clicking, just because there was so plenty to do, to explore, to inspect, pick up, throw around.

Now obviously a point-click navigation won't really workf from what I've seen from the engine demo and screenshots. You'll be using wasd & mouse. In third person, it would be hard to do complex combat without auto-target, detailed navigation using wasd in 3rd person is tricky. What I'm getting at is that combat can be very simple and challenging at the same time, block when needed strike back vurnable foe's. For example WoW has this system, quite the best system I've played with in 3rd person (mmo)RPG's, one difference with what Lepel and I are getting at is that combat/spells will rather be performed by simple key-combinations (shift+ hold mouse1 = inferno) (run + mouse1 = beserk) (run + mouse 2 = shieldbash), and not the usual 1234567890 or F1 F2 F3... keys.

Personally I find it easier to use simple combo's than using the Function or numeric keys.

In 1st person, auto-target would be lame, and combat would involve many mouse/wrist movements.
Posted By: Draghermosran

Re: Wishlist - 11/12/06 09:09 PM

Als antwoord op:


Anyway, since nobody is likely to change their mind, I'll just say I hope Larian comes up with a way to make combat more interesting without resorting to micromanaging it.




Nobody needs to change his mind, this is a discussion on wishes. Not to conclude an agreement. Larian shall en should do what they wish, draw their own conclusions from this discussion.
Posted By: Raze

Re: Wishlist - 11/12/06 10:29 PM

Raze, this is not personal.

No, just personal taste/preference.


Did you have carpal tunnel syndrome playing DD or BD?

No, though my wrist could be a little sore after longer playing sessions. Games that require a lot of mouse movement, right clicking or use of the arrow keys cause problems faster. However, going from one or two clicks per opponent to dozens would probably be an issue for me unless the number and frequency of enemy was cut back correspondingly.

Actually, with support for gamepads an active fighting system could be designed which would require less finger movement and a more natural hand position than a keyboard and mouse, so that could potentially offset some of what I consider the disadvantages.


In 1st person, auto-target would be lame, and combat would involve many mouse/wrist movements.

Another reason I don't like the first person perspective. There is generally little peripheral vision, so even just exploring requires a lot of mouse movement.


Nobody needs to change his mind, this is a discussion on wishes.

Perhaps that was poorly phrased on my part. I simply meant that since this is a matter of personal preference (not something you can usually change someone's mind about unless they have not yet formed a strong opinion) there isn't much point in me continuing the debate after I have explained my position. I just wanted to bow out of the discussion (unless someone comes up with a new take on it) by reiterating my objection to micromanaged combat, while acknowledging combat could be made more interesting than simply repeated clicking.

The way I said it the first time was much shorter.
Posted By: lepel

Re: Wishlist - 12/12/06 12:38 AM

Quote:

In third person, it would be hard to do complex combat without auto-target, detailed navigation using wasd in 3rd person is tricky. What I'm getting at is that combat can be very simple and challenging at the same time, block when needed strike back vurnable foe's. For example WoW has this system, quite the best system I've played with in 3rd person (mmo)RPG's, one difference with what Lepel and I are getting at is that combat/spells will rather be performed by simple key-combinations (shift+ hold mouse1 = inferno) (run + mouse1 = beserk) (run + mouse 2 = shieldbash), and not the usual 1234567890 or F1 F2 F3... keys.

Personally I find it easier to use simple combo's than using the Function or numeric keys.

In 1st person, auto-target would be lame, and combat would involve many mouse/wrist movements.



Try Rakion (from softnyx, its free but you can buy benefits if you want) if you have the time. (and feel like it)
It isn't a RPG but it has a somewhat more complex fighting system (without auto-target) in third person. So if you swing a sword or another weapon and it misses its your own fault.
But this game is all about timing and learning about the enemys attacks (and the delay time of their attacks). It might not be an ideal fighting system for a single player game. So don't think I would want a fighting system like that in the game. But I'd prefer it over the gothic 3 or oblivion fighting system.

I find it easier to use simple combos too, thats why I wanted them to be customizable since I know this is different for everyone.

And imo 1st person would be lame, auto-target or not. (but the third person view available in oblivion was even lamer as its 1st person view)
Posted By: xAcesx

Re: Wishlist - 12/12/06 01:10 AM

Third person view would be better, as it gives better all round vision in towns (heavily populated) and can help general exploring in forest areas or hilly terrain.

The combat system needs to be simple but effective, requiring some thought regarding what attacks works best for a given situation. And the same with any skill trees that can be persued.
Posted By: Lurker

Re: Wishlist - 12/12/06 02:27 AM

I fully agree with most of what Raze has written, except that first person perspective sucks for RPGs. I liked it in SW:KotOR – however, this game often had relatively narrow levels that were easy to explore. If Larian creates a big world in its next RPG, I'd also prefer not having to look left and right all of the time just to make sure I don't miss some detail.

To the proponents of an "active combat" system: In , warriors could e.g. use their special attack, boomerang weapon throws, poisoned weapons, shadow warriors, jumps in front of their enemies, and several special arrows. That's not as many options as a mage had (though attack spells weren't that numerous, either), and you could win without using any of those options, but some variation during combat was possible, if you were willing to learn and use it.

Wouldn't some more special attacks along that line be better than having to initiate every single block and quicker or mightier blows with a click (or even several clicks)? Especially if some enemies were resistant to some special attacks or clever enough to counter them? They might also be vulnerable to some attacks, just like they are to some kinds of magic, and of course the better ones would also use those special attacks to their advantage. If your character was good enough, you could still win by just starting combat with a click (and maybe healing yourself), but using the special attacks cleverly could give you quite an advantage, so that combat ended faster or you won fights that you still couldn't win without using special skills.

To me, this sounds much more interesting than the "active combat" systems proposed above. And if some useful special attacks are only available at higher levels, there's an incentive to change your tactics now and then, resulting in a lower chance of combat becoming repetitive.

Posted By: Elliot_Kane

Re: Wishlist - 12/12/06 03:15 AM

I think the traditional 'overhead view' perspective as used in Baldur's Gate is the best one for RPGs.
Posted By: HandEFood

Re: Wishlist - 12/12/06 06:15 AM

One idea to make combat more strategic: potions aren't instantaneous. In Diablo II, drinking a potion slowly replenished your health/mana over a matter of seconds. In Dungeons & Dragons drinking a potion prevents you from attacking and defending. Personally, I like the second idea better. Drinking a potion requires you at least put your hand to your mouth for a second, causing you to lose any defense provided by your weapon (or a fraction of your dexterity.)

Some opponents could have disposable resources as well. Just when you think the mini-boss is about to die, health potion! An enemy wizard may have limited mana. To prevent players simply dodging attacks until their mana is drained, a wizard will remember which spells are effective. If you dodge three fireballs in a row, he won't bother trying that again unless you're in close quarters. If you continue to dodge them in close quarters, he'll save his mana for protection spells.

Limited types of damage. The twenty-odd damage types in Beyond Divinity were useless. Most were identical, just painted a different colour. Keep it down to 2 or 3 physical damage types and 3 to 5 additional types. Then you have a decent chance of being resistant to something. Why waste money or skill points deflecting a damage that you only encounter from 1 out of every 20 monsters? Also, have each additional damage type be unique in some way. Fire is wide, poison lasts, electricity is powerful, water can be critically damaging, wind knocks you back, earth is magically induced physical damage, etc.

With the thoughts jumping around on the combat system, whatever system is used needs to incorporate equally interesting physical and magical combat, while using the character's abilities rather than the players. My thoughts: click on a opponent to target them. Melee or ranged combat is automatic with the character attacking and deflecting and dodging blows. Special abilities and spells are a mouse-click or keyboard-key away. Larger monsters could have different sections to attack, possibly with a weakness.

With skills, try to balance the number of passive and active skills for each "class" of character. Often, fighters end up with a hoard of passive skills, requiring little interaction, and wizards with more active skills than they can ever hope to use. Different melee attack styles could be active skills. Have passive skills that suppliment a broad range of magic skills and let a wizard specialise. Also, skills that become obsolete are a waste. I'd rather see a fire bolt grow into a flaming inferno over 20 skill levels (some perhaps from augmenting passive skills) than have to dump the fire bolt in favour of a fire ball, then a flaming inferno. Any spell can potentially be the most powerful spell.

To prevent repeatative and sleepy combat, have opponents change their tactics from time to time. An orc may rush in with a powerful attack, may may resort to defensive or dirty fighting when things don't bode well to him.

Just some thoughts.

Posted By: Raze

Re: Wishlist - 12/12/06 07:12 AM

I'd rather see a fire bolt grow into a flaming inferno over 20 skill levels (some perhaps from augmenting passive skills) than have to dump the fire bolt in favour of a fire ball, then a flaming inferno. Any spell can potentially be the most powerful spell.

In this case, it would be nice if you were still able to cast the lower level spell even after it gets upgraded, to conserve mana fighting weaker opponents. This could be done by putting skill points into a category (ie Fire) to activate each spell at the appropriate level.

More flexible, and more original, would be to do a straight upgrade of the spell, but to allow it to be cast at partial strength (which could also shorten the casting time). Perhaps casting a spell at higher than full strength could do more damage, but also do physical damage to the caster, and add a time penalty before mana would start regenerating (or another spell could be cast). Depending on the proficiency with that particular spell (perhaps based on the number of times it has been cast), the higher a mage tries to overreach their skill level the higher the chance the spell will misfire (doing damage to the caster, but not the enemy).
Posted By: Draghermosran

Re: Wishlist - 12/12/06 07:33 AM

on spells/magic:

Maybe something more general first, I prefer to see less enemies at once, really beeing attacked by a whole horde of Orcs, are you a mage or warrior, is quite odd. You should never be able to defend from that. You better be carefull and don't flee from one combat into another.

That said, spells should overall be more powerfull, but more consuming in time/mana. A meteor strike should either instant kill, or leave the target stunned, knocked down. Giving the mage a chance to finish him off. With melee combat or maybe a less powerfull spell. There should be a reasonable mana regeneration for this to work. Also to make it little more challenging, some spells would not be able to perform while moving, casting an powerfull meteorstrike wouldn't but a firebolt would. Having the mage to use the right skills in the right time. use a firebolt to lure a distant enemy, charge a meteorstrike and hit the target. If you lure more targets you better start running and keep using the firebolt spell. Aside from how combat is controlled.
Posted By: lepel

Re: Wishlist - 12/12/06 11:27 AM

Quote:


To the proponents of an "active combat" system: In , warriors could e.g. use their special attack, boomerang weapon throws, poisoned weapons, shadow warriors, jumps in front of their enemies, and several special arrows. That's not as many options as a mage had (though attack spells weren't that numerous, either), and you could win without using any of those options, but some variation during combat was possible, if you were willing to learn and use it.

Wouldn't some more special attacks along that line be better than having to initiate every single block and quicker or mightier blows with a click (or even several clicks)? Especially if some enemies were resistant to some special attacks or clever enough to counter them? They might also be vulnerable to some attacks, just like they are to some kinds of magic, and of course the better ones would also use those special attacks to their advantage. If your character was good enough, you could still win by just starting combat with a click (and maybe healing yourself), but using the special attacks cleverly could give you quite an advantage, so that combat ended faster or you won fights that you still couldn't win without using special skills.
To me, this sounds much more interesting than the "active combat" systems proposed above. And if some useful special attacks are only available at higher levels, there's an incentive to change your tactics now and then, resulting in a lower chance of combat becoming repetitive.




Did you read my post about the different difficulty settings and how that might be a solution ?
would those specials you suggested be better ? to you maybe, but I know it wouldnt be better for me.
I suggested to get customizable combos so you could put the skills on the numeric or function keys and I could activate them with mouseclicks.
Would this really be such a bad idea ? Put the difficulty setting on easy and only the harder enemys might require you to use these skills, put it on hard and you should use them often.
Posted By: lepel

Re: Wishlist - 12/12/06 12:23 PM

Quote:

I'd rather see a fire bolt grow into a flaming inferno over 20 skill levels (some perhaps from augmenting passive skills) than have to dump the fire bolt in favour of a fire ball, then a flaming inferno. Any spell can potentially be the most powerful spell.

In this case, it would be nice if you were still able to cast the lower level spell even after it gets upgraded, to conserve mana fighting weaker opponents. This could be done by putting skill points into a category (ie Fire) to activate each spell at the appropriate level.

More flexible, and more original, would be to do a straight upgrade of the spell, but to allow it to be cast at partial strength (which could also shorten the casting time). Perhaps casting a spell at higher than full strength could do more damage, but also do physical damage to the caster, and add a time penalty before mana would start regenerating (or another spell could be cast). Depending on the proficiency with that particular spell (perhaps based on the number of times it has been cast), the higher a mage tries to overreach their skill level the higher the chance the spell will misfire (doing damage to the caster, but not the enemy).




I like the idea of proficiency (based on the number of times it has been cast).
But I would use that to let the fire bolt grow into a flaming inferno. (And you spend more points in the fire attribute the attack will get stronger.
And for example 20 points in the fire attribute will allow you to go to skill lvl 1 but not to lvl 2.
Like this someone that knows some basic fire magic wouldn't be able to use the same spell at the same lvl as someone that masters fire magic)
And if we would have a fire bolt growing into a flaming inferno, and not have them as seperate skills, imo it has to be done by proficiency.
I would still want to see more as one fire skill.
for example 4 skills (a minimum) that you get as you become a
-rookie (fire bolt->fire inferno)
-apprentice(maybe a fire shield, and a mana reduction bonus for the rookie skill)
-fire mage(meteor that grows into a fire rain that grows into a meteor storm)
-fire master (ability to let an enemy burst into flames and as you get more proficient at it the enemys within a certain range of your target and for a longer time)
Posted By: TheDivine

Re: Wishlist - 12/12/06 04:01 PM

I would like a 3rd person perspective more then 1st person.

That said, anyone played mount and blade? Good fighting system wuithout much hard stuff/
Posted By: HandEFood

Re: Wishlist - 12/12/06 11:37 PM

Warning: post isn't as bit as it looks. It's mostly quotes.

Quote:

I'd rather see a fire bolt grow into a flaming inferno over 20 skill levels (some perhaps from augmenting passive skills) than have to dump the fire bolt in favour of a fire ball, then a flaming inferno. Any spell can potentially be the most powerful spell.

In this case, it would be nice if you were still able to cast the lower level spell even after it gets upgraded, to conserve mana fighting weaker opponents. This could be done by putting skill points into a category (ie Fire) to activate each spell at the appropriate level.

More flexible, and more original, would be to do a straight upgrade of the spell, but to allow it to be cast at partial strength (which could also shorten the casting time). Perhaps casting a spell at higher than full strength could do more damage, but also do physical damage to the caster, and add a time penalty before mana would start regenerating (or another spell could be cast). Depending on the proficiency with that particular spell (perhaps based on the number of times it has been cast), the higher a mage tries to overreach their skill level the higher the chance the spell will misfire (doing damage to the caster, but not the enemy).



Okay. Hold the button to charge the spell and release to cast it. You can release the button early to cast the spell at a lower level. Each level exponentially increases the mana cost and effect of the spell.

Level 1 fireball – 0.5 sec – 1 mana – 5 fire damage – 1 target
Level 4 fireball – 2.0 sec – 16 mana – 64 fire damage – 4 meter explosion
Level 7 fireball – 3.5 sec – 49 mana – 147 fire damage – 7 meter explosion
Level 10 fireball – 5.0 sec – 100 mana – 200 fire damage – 10 meter explosion

So high levels of this spell are great at defeating multiple opponents, but against a single powerful boss, you'd want a more focused spell like a Lightning Bolt. The lightning bolt would have better damage-per-mana each level, but would only ever hit one target.

If you want a delay (charge now, cast later), hold SHIFT as you charge it, let go of the button when it's charged and let go of SHIFT when you want to cast it.

Quote:

That said, spells should overall be more powerfull, but more consuming in time/mana. A meteor strike should either instant kill, or leave the target stunned, knocked down. Giving the mage a chance to finish him off. With melee combat or maybe a less powerfull spell. There should be a reasonable mana regeneration for this to work. Also to make it little more challenging, some spells would not be able to perform while moving, casting an powerfull meteorstrike wouldn't but a firebolt would. Having the mage to use the right skills in the right time.



I like that!

Quote:

I like the idea of proficiency (based on the number of times it has been cast).



While it makes sense, I've rarely seen this done well in a game. It seems to either force the player to specialise or gives them too much freedom. I remember spending hours in Quest For Glory simply throwing rocks so I could get perfect throwing skill. Proficiency gives players the opportunity to specialise in everything, which is an oxymoron.

Quote:

But I would use that to let the fire bolt grow into a flaming inferno. (And you spend more points in the fire attribute the attack will get stronger.
And for example 20 points in the fire attribute will allow you to go to skill lvl 1 but not to lvl 2.



To make proficiency work, you cannot gain more than 20 points (maybe 30) until you buy skill level 1, after which the cap increases another 20 points. This forces you to use what you have learned before you can gain the next level, and also prevents lower level character simply training to become demi-gods by requiring them to gain levels to gain the skills needed to continue their training.

Quote:

I would still want to see more as one fire skill.
for example 4 skills (a minimum) that you get as you become a
-rookie (fire bolt->fire inferno)
-apprentice(maybe a fire shield, and a mana reduction bonus for the rookie skill)
-fire mage(meteor that grows into a fire rain that grows into a meteor storm)
-fire master (ability to let an enemy burst into flames and as you get more proficient at it the enemys within a certain range of your target and for a longer time)



I like that!

One thing I found silly in Diablo II is that you only need 1 level of a lower skill to open unlimited training in a higher skill. How can a scorcer learn to rain fire from the heveans, yet she can barely warm a kettle to make a cup of tea?

So a character can have several proficiencies, each with a maximum. Every skill requires you have a certain score in one or more proficiencies, and it increases the maximum of those proficiencies. For example:

Fire Bolt
Level 1 – requires 20 fire proficiency – +20 fire limit
Level 2 – requires 40 fire proficiency – +20 fire limit
Level 3 – requires 60 fire proficiency – +20 fire limit
...
Wall of Fire
Level 1 – requires 50 fire proficiency – +30 fire limit
Level 2 – requires 100 fire proficiency – +30 fire limit
Level 3 – requires 150 fire proficiency – +30 fire limit
...
Immolate
Level 1 – requires 200 fire proficiency – +150 fire limit
...

Say the fire limit starts at 30. If you train all the way, you can learn Fire Bolt 1, increasing the limit to 50. At next level-up, further training could get you Wall of Fire 1 or Fire Bolt 2. If you take Wall of Fire 1, the limit isn't increased enough to learn Wall of Fire 2. You require further study in lesser fire spells before this is an option.

In the case of Immoate 1, this can be learned after extensive training in just Fire Bolt 9, or training over a wider range of fire spells.

Have I just forced people to specialise?
Posted By: Lurker

Re: Wishlist - 13/12/06 03:35 AM

Did you read my post about the different difficulty settings and how that might be a solution ?

Yes, but I don't like the idea of connecting the difficulty setting to "active combat". If I don't want a system that requires clicks for every block, quick or mighty blow, this doesn't mean I want easy fights. Perhaps an "active combat" option (in addition to the difficulty setting) would be a solution. If it's set to "off", the character continues to fight and block automatically after combat is initiated, just special skills are triggered by pressing a key or clicking. When set to "on", you control every swing, slash, block and stab of your character. But it doesn't mean enemies have more or less hit points, better or worse fighting stats etc.

I suggested to get customizable combos so you could put the skills on the numeric or function keys and I could activate them with mouseclicks.
Would this really be such a bad idea ? Put the difficulty setting on easy and only the harder enemys might require you to use these skills, put it on hard and you should use them often.


Having to use "active combat" just against hard enemies would be a bad idea, since players who don't train "active combat" against weaker enemies would quite likely face problems using it against hard enemies - compared to those who always use it and are well-trained in using it. If people don't like the "active combat" system, it shouldn't be forced on them, not even in a few fights.

I like the idea of proficiency (based on the number of times it has been cast).

I've not seen a game where this idea was implemented in a balanced and interesting way. It usually rewards those who are willing to either train without any enemy being present or to use overpowered spells on weak enemies for training purposes - which, by the way, is especially strange in the case of priestly characters; invoking godly might for training purposes seems like an abuse of this power to me. More often than not, a proficiency system encourages needless repetition. I can imagine a proficiency system that only counts using a spell or skill if it has been activated in a useful way (e.g. in a fight against enemies of equal or higher level), but I guess this would be difficult to implement, especially for the non-combat spells and skills.

Hold the button to charge the spell and release to cast it. You can release the button early to cast the spell at a lower level. Each level exponentially increases the mana cost and effect of the spell.

I like the idea of connecting casting times, mana, damage and radius to the time a key or button has been pressed. But if there are 10 fireball levels, how many levels are there going to be for non-combat spells? In Divine Divinity, having 5 levels of Wizard's Sight is a waste of skill points compared to having 5 levels of a combat spell. If Larian can't think of a good way to increase a spell's effects, that spell should simply have a lower maximum level or even just one level. Another example is Fade from Sight: Having level 5 is only useful if you stay invisible for some time; if you just want to turn invisible for a second or two during combat, you're better off having level 1. In a system with 10 fireball levels, any invisibility spell should have several levels as well, so it can't be mastered spending just 1 skill point, but that means the effects should somehow become better, apart from a lower mana consumption rate.
Posted By: HandEFood

Re: Wishlist - 13/12/06 05:07 AM

Quote:

Hold the button to charge the spell and release to cast it. You can release the button early to cast the spell at a lower level. Each level exponentially increases the mana cost and effect of the spell.

I like the idea of connecting casting times, mana, damage and radius to the time a key or button has been pressed. But if there are 10 fireball levels, how many levels are there going to be for non-combat spells? In Divine Divinity, having 5 levels of Wizard's Sight is a waste of skill points compared to having 5 levels of a combat spell. If Larian can't think of a good way to increase a spell's effects, that spell should simply have a lower maximum level or even just one level. Another example is Fade from Sight: Having level 5 is only useful if you stay invisible for some time; if you just want to turn invisible for a second or two during combat, you're better off having level 1. In a system with 10 fireball levels, any invisibility spell should have several levels as well, so it can't be mastered spending just 1 skill point, but that means the effects should somehow become better, apart from a lower mana consumption rate.



Spells like Invisibility or Resist Elements can have multiple levels. They could work like offensive spells: longer casting bring exponentially longer or larger results. Invisibility 2 will last long enough for you escape combat. Invisibility 6 will give you great advantage in a fight. Invisibility 10 will let you wonder through the enemy keep unseen, letting you find the weapon that exploits their weakness in safety.

Similarly for Resist Elements, let them charge it up. Sure, most times you'll charge it up fully before casting, but what if you're ambushed by a wizard who immediately starts casting a Fireball? You only have time to half-charge Resist Elements before he throws the fireball or suffer the full wrath of his flames.

Any defensive spell should have the risk of you being vulnerable while you cast it, but with worthy benefits. The same goes for drinking potions.

As for Wizard's Sight, extra levels are pointless, so it may be worth while to cap it at level 1. Perhaps broaden Wizard's Sight to improve vision in several ways: longer sight in the open and in darkness, and within 25% of your improved sight range you can see through walls, see invisible objects, and see through illusions. Each level improves the duration and range of the vision. Would that be worth additional skill points? Other one-level skills could be given a broader effect to make them worthy of additional skill points.

Posted By: Draghermosran

Re: Wishlist - 13/12/06 08:01 AM

On spells,

Maybe this could be an option, in combination with proficiency you would have several "elements" a caster can use. There are offcourse fire, ice/water, air, earth and electricity. A caster needs to learn the secrets of one of these elements to be able to use them, let's say in the beginning of the game a teacher wishes to teach you one of these secrets for free, later magician teachers will ask a fee, the more of the elements you learn the bigger the fee. This way the caster can learn whatever elements he wants and train them (proficiency) But mastering all of them would take lots of time, training and money.

Now, a caster could only activly wield one element at a time: a passive skill that needs activation. There are also a standard set of spells that can be applied to the active element. These could be, Bolt (quick strike), , Ball (has splash damage), blast (sprays the element (inferno, chainlightning)), apply (Imolate, freeze...) Shower (meteors, ligthning storm, hurricane, snowstorm), with some deviations. These skills come avaible if a certain % of proficiency is reached.

In melee combat a similar system, depending on what weapon you equip the proficiency will rise, unlocking the weapons special abilities. You'll also need to learn the weapons specialisation to be able to use the special skills for it. When equiping a weapon without the specialisation, your proficiency will increase at a much lower rate.

Profiency increament would also be dependant on your level, while you still gain experience in the classic way, so you won't be "grinding" for proficiency.
Posted By: Elliot_Kane

Re: Wishlist - 13/12/06 09:20 AM

Quote:

Another example is Fade from Sight: Having level 5 is only useful if you stay invisible for some time; if you just want to turn invisible for a second or two during combat, you're better off having level 1. In a system with 10 fireball levels, any invisibility spell should have several levels as well, so it can't be mastered spending just 1 skill point, but that means the effects should somehow become better, apart from a lower mana consumption rate.




If you are playing a warrior, FFS is actually one of the best spells in the game and you would absolutely want it at top level.

The warrior's special move is a non-targetting attack, so does not break the invisibility, and the combination of the two is the easiest way to take down Josaria in the game

And yes, working that out came as a huge relief to me after who knows how many deaths at her hands
Posted By: Lurker

Re: Wishlist - 13/12/06 02:09 PM

I know that this works, but I consider it a bug. After all, what reason should there be that you become visible when attacking a foe the normal way, but remain unseen when swinging at several enemies close by? You can also cast Elemental Strikes at enemies from afar after becoming invisible, and they won't react, but I consider that a bug as well. Making use of it would make me feel I've cheated my way to victory.

FFS is a great spell, but it's my impression that a longer duration (or a lower mana consumption) isn't worth extra skill points if you compare it to the proposed effect increase of a fireball. An increase in the quality of the spell might be necessary, so at level 1 people might have a certain chance of still noticing you because they can hear you or your veil is imperfect. Whether additional effects for Wizard's Sight would be worth more skill points is hard to tell. My point was that if Larian finds it hard to balance spells and to increase certain effects, it would be better to have lower maximum levels for some spells than to have extra levels that aren't really worth the skill points.
Posted By: Elliot_Kane

Re: Wishlist - 13/12/06 02:36 PM

Quote:

I know that this works, but I consider it a bug. After all, what reason should there be that you become visible when attacking a foe the normal way, but remain unseen when swinging at several enemies close by? You can also cast Elemental Strikes at enemies from afar after becoming invisible, and they won't react, but I consider that a bug as well. Making use of it would make me feel I've cheated my way to victory.

FFS is a great spell, but it's my impression that a longer duration (or a lower mana consumption) isn't worth extra skill points if you compare it to the proposed effect increase of a fireball. An increase in the quality of the spell might be necessary, so at level 1 people might have a certain chance of still noticing you because they can hear you or your veil is imperfect. Whether additional effects for Wizard's Sight would be worth more skill points is hard to tell. My point was that if Larian finds it hard to balance spells and to increase certain effects, it would be better to have lower maximum levels for some spells than to have extra levels that aren't really worth the skill points.




And mine was that a spell can often be what you make of it Sometimes a spell that seems to have a very limited use can turn out to be incredibly useful, after all, if just applied in the right way
Posted By: AlrikFassbauer

Re: Wishlist - 13/12/06 08:33 PM

The Avatar And Me

Comments on that.

Posted By: TheDivine

Re: Wishlist - 13/12/06 09:10 PM

locations where to finish quests should not be displayed on a map or something imo. Things should not be so easy as in Oblivion.

my overall statement: make it Gothic3/Divinity like and me = happy


Posted By: HandEFood

Re: Wishlist - 13/12/06 09:42 PM

Quote:

FFS is a great spell, but it's my impression that a longer duration (or a lower mana consumption) isn't worth extra skill points if you compare it to the proposed effect increase of a fireball. An increase in the quality of the spell might be necessary, so at level 1 people might have a certain chance of still noticing you because they can hear you or your veil is imperfect. Whether additional effects for Wizard's Sight would be worth more skill points is hard to tell. My point was that if Larian finds it hard to balance spells and to increase certain effects, it would be better to have lower maximum levels for some spells than to have extra levels that aren't really worth the skill points.



For the quality of Invisibility to increase, creatures close to you can see your blurred outline. You still gain a hefty defense boost, but can be targetted and attacked. The range creatures can see you within decreases each level. You're never be completely invisible, but medium-to-high levels will stop pesky archers and wizards from hitting you from afar.

I get your point with lowering skill maximums. Each skill level that can be bought must be of equivilent value to other skills. Don't bother offering moot skill levels just because "every skill should have x levels."
Posted By: Tutamun

Re: Wishlist - 14/12/06 12:04 AM

Quote:

locations where to finish quests should not be displayed on a map or something imo. Things should not be so easy as in Oblivion.

my overall statement: make it Gothic3/Divinity like and me = happy





I don't have so much time to play... and often a few days between play sessions... so please make it as easy as in Guild Wars or Oblivion.

Where was this stupid quest giver I met two weeks ago?

At least the quest log should contain all the info you need so you can look it up again later.
Posted By: lepel

Re: Wishlist - 14/12/06 12:42 AM

Quote:

Quote:

locations where to finish quests should not be displayed on a map or something imo. Things should not be so easy as in Oblivion.

my overall statement: make it Gothic3/Divinity like and me = happy





I don't have so much time to play... and often a few days between play sessions... so please make it as easy as in Guild Wars or Oblivion.

Where was this stupid quest giver I met two weeks ago?

At least the quest log should contain all the info you need so you can look it up again later.




Well, imo it shouldn't show us where to finish the quests either, but I have no problem with a quest log containing all the info you got from your quest giver.

I wouldn't want the game to be too much Gothic 3 like, some things in the game were really nice, but some things really weren't (imo).
I guess I couldn't make enough choices to keep me happy.
And the side quests didn't give me the feeling they really were sidequests, It wasn't really possible to just leave the storyline for what it was for a while.
(and since this thread isn't about what I wouldve wanted to see different in gothic 3, I won't go into detail any further)
Posted By: lepel

Re: Wishlist - 14/12/06 01:27 AM

Quote:

The Avatar And Me

Comments on that.





Reading that really made me wonder what larian is planning with the game.
Because I really don't know what to expect from it.
Are we gonna get another RPG (with limited character choices) that is actually all about fighting and where imo the fighting is poorly done (=the reason I talked this much about fighting).
The fighting will never be able to keep everyone happy from what I read here.
Or as I said in my first post here, are we gonna get the choice to play a somewhat more peacefull role in the game.(if we don't like the implemented fighting system)
And actually still be able to really play through the game.

I would like to be able to play through the game in different ways:
For example as a diplomat, trader, a powerfull damage dealing mage or a fighter.
Doing quests differently and seeing the world changing accordingly.
I know it would be difficult to make this work but...is this a wishlist or is this a wishlist.
Posted By: Elliot_Kane

Re: Wishlist - 14/12/06 04:13 AM

Lepel...

What you describe is pretty much the first half of Lionheart, which was up to that point the best single-character RPG ever. Then it broke my heart by turning into one long slugfest for the entire second half.

From what I understand, Black Isle had to hurry up and finish it as they were being wound up, but as long as you are in or based around New Barcelona the kind of options you have for your character are second to none. In every encounter you can talk to you have options based on race, stats, abilities, and hosts of other things.

Yeah, there's fighting in the first half too, but it's in no way the main focus of the game.
Posted By: Raze

Re: Wishlist - 14/12/06 06:28 AM

Hold the button to charge the spell and release to cast it.

In that case, a simple click should cast the spell a full strength (so you would only have to bother with holding the mouse button down when you wanted to cast something at partial strength).
I'd rather be able to select different versions of the spell for different magnitudes, have some kind of strength slider or use modifier keys when the spell is cast.


Proficiency gives players the opportunity to specialise in everything, which is an oxymoron.

I wasn't thinking of proficiency for determining the strength or level of a skill, just in determining the mage' ability to cast it (and perhaps an influence on accuracy). I mentioned being able to attempt to cast a spell at a higher power than normal, but there could be other factors which could interfere with magic. Noise, light or physical distractions (direct attacks, poisonous mists, extreme weather) could interrupt spell casting or increase spell preparation time. The more familiar a mage was with a spell, the easier it would be to cast out of habit or by reflex (lower preparation time), so the less distractions would hurt.

Perhaps spells learned from a book would have a higher initial chance of misfiring. If you learn from a teacher they can instruct you more closely and make sure you are competent. Perhaps some teachers could offer additional training (at a high cost) in their field of expertise to help you become more proficient. For example, a healer might be able to train you from a novice to a beginner, but you would have to find a master healer (after using healing spells a fair amount) to train further.


For offensive combat spells the proficiency could be based on the experience gained from defeated opponents multiplied by the ration of the damage done by the spell to their total number of hit points. Select trainers could help boost your proficiency, but in general you would have to earn it legitimately. You couldn't become more proficient in a powerful spell by casting it on weak opponents, since they would be giving little or no experience points.


The skill system I'm thinking of would still be based on skill points, so you could still dump a bunch of points into a new skill and have something effective, and wouldn't be penalized if you wanted to switch styles late in the game, from not having used a particular type of spell much before. Adding proficiency (as a lesser effect) allows the skill system to be more realistic and opens up some interesting possibilities, but it is also more complex than either a straight skill point or proficiency system would be.
Posted By: AlrikFassbauer

Re: Wishlist - 14/12/06 08:42 AM

In Antwort auf:

Where was this stupid quest giver I met two weeks ago?




And what did he say ?

I regard an Journal as essential.

No modern game should be without it, I believe.

Posted By: Elliot_Kane

Re: Wishlist - 14/12/06 08:47 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Where was this stupid quest giver I met two weeks ago?




And what did he say ?

I regard an Journal as essential.

No modern game should be without it, I believe.





Agreed
Posted By: TheDivine

Re: Wishlist - 14/12/06 05:51 PM

Als antwoord op:

Als antwoord op:

Als antwoord op:

locations where to finish quests should not be displayed on a map or something imo. Things should not be so easy as in Oblivion.

my overall statement: make it Gothic3/Divinity like and me = happy





I don't have so much time to play... and often a few days between play sessions... so please make it as easy as in Guild Wars or Oblivion.

Where was this stupid quest giver I met two weeks ago?

At least the quest log should contain all the info you need so you can look it up again later.




Well, imo it shouldn't show us where to finish the quests either, but I have no problem with a quest log containing all the info you got from your quest giver.

I wouldn't want the game to be too much Gothic 3 like, some things in the game were really nice, but some things really weren't (imo).
I guess I couldn't make enough choices to keep me happy.
And the side quests didn't give me the feeling they really were sidequests, It wasn't really possible to just leave the storyline for what it was for a while.
(and since this thread isn't about what I wouldve wanted to see different in gothic 3, I won't go into detail any further)




I agree the things should be in a questlog, but should not literarry be an arrow pointing to the exact location. Perhaps you can be able to place markers on your map as well (if you think it is hard to find a place again).

But please, let us play the game and not the game play us. Let us think on what to do. Dont make it dumbed up like oblivion or whatever (you seriously can follow the arrows and fight what you see to complete the game then)

Oh and another thing. If theres gonna be puzzles, please make them fun to do, and not ahhhww [nocando] , another one of this lame things
Posted By: Lar_q

Re: Wishlist - 14/12/06 05:53 PM

To add some fire to the discussion (which is quite interesting and reflects many of the discussions we had in-house) - how would your combat system look like if you could also fly ? Not that I'm saying you can fly in our next RPG, but suppose you could. You'd have to deal with things like air to air & air to ground, preferably with the same system in order not to confuse your players.

Lar
Posted By: Foetsy

Re: Wishlist - 14/12/06 06:10 PM

But then you need, besides de aswd buttens, 2 more buttons to go up and down, if you want to keep your mouse free for targeting right? If I think about the filghtsims I've played, fighting and flying at the same time would one hell of a job.
It might be fun and is certainly original, but I think it will be real hard to control your character (by means of controls I know anyway).
Posted By: lepel

Re: Wishlist - 14/12/06 07:41 PM

Quote:

To add some fire to the discussion (which is quite interesting and reflects many of the discussions we had in-house) - how would your combat system look like if you could also fly ? Not that I'm saying you can fly in our next RPG, but suppose you could. You'd have to deal with things like air to air & air to ground, preferably with the same system in order not to confuse your players.
Lar




Well what exactly do you mean with "if you can fly".
With wings or on a dragon or another creature ? (or just superman style ? It's a bird! It's a plane! It's Larians next RPG!!)
Or maybe we could just after a certain time transform into a big cool looking evolved form of ourselves. (for a while, and offcourse be able to fly)
I guess we will have wings if that is the case.
There was this mmo"rpg" I used to play called muonline, after lvl 180 you were able to "wear" wings. It made your char look so cool and you could move alot faster.

Not really knowing how exactly you would make them fly, I'd say turn based combat has to be the easiest way to keep the same system for air to air and air to ground.
(different skills but the way to activate them remains the same)
But if we were able to have wings this opens tons of possibilities.(it might be abit weird though)
Well please let us know what exactly you mean with "if you could also fly".
Because imo thats very important to really be able to think about the combat system.

For an active combat system maybe your typical wasd keys to move and use another button (left shift preferably) to change the use of the mouse in fly mode/target mode.
But I guess I would still go for a Gothic 3 meets guildwars kinda combatsystem.
where the more close combat fighting options are enabled by using combos (preferably customizable so some people could just use the numeric or function keys)
and NO autoaim/autotarget system. (with maybe the exception of a few skills). So fly by and hit or grab as we get close.
The range combat really depends on what kind off skill you are using.
I want to aim with a bow myself or shoot a fireball in a certain direction rather than autotargetting it.
Some special skills/spells (curses for example or immolate or whatever) still have to autotarget your enemy. (since being able to "miss" a curse sounds abit silly to me).


Posted By: TheDivine

Re: Wishlist - 14/12/06 08:23 PM

Als antwoord op:

Als antwoord op:

To add some fire to the discussion (which is quite interesting and reflects many of the discussions we had in-house) - how would your combat system look like if you could also fly ? Not that I'm saying you can fly in our next RPG, but suppose you could. You'd have to deal with things like air to air & air to ground, preferably with the same system in order not to confuse your players.
Lar




Well what exactly do you mean with "if you can fly".
With wings or on a dragon or another creature ? (or just superman style ? It's a bird! It's a plane! It's Larians next RPG!!)
Or maybe we could just after a certain time transform into a big cool looking evolved form of ourselves. (for a while, and offcourse be able to fly)
I guess we will have wings if that is the case.
There was this mmo"rpg" I used to play called muonline, after lvl 180 you were able to "wear" wings. It made your char look so cool and you could move alot faster.

Not really knowing how exactly you would make them fly, I'd say turn based combat has to be the easiest way to keep the same system for air to air and air to ground.
(different skills but the way to activate them remains the same)
But if we were able to have wings this opens tons of possibilities.(it might be abit weird though)
Well please let us know what exactly you mean with "if you could also fly".
Because imo thats very important to really be able to think about the combat system.

For an active combat system maybe your typical wasd keys to move and use another button (left shift preferably) to change the use of the mouse in fly mode/target mode.
But I guess I would still go for a Gothic 3 meets guildwars kinda combatsystem.
where the more close combat fighting options are enabled by using combos (preferably customizable so some people could just use the numeric or function keys)
and NO autoaim/autotarget system. (with maybe the exception of a few skills). So fly by and hit or grab as we get close.
The range combat really depends on what kind off skill you are using.
I want to aim with a bow myself or shoot a fireball in a certain direction rather than autotargetting it.
Some special skills/spells (curses for example or immolate or whatever) still have to autotarget your enemy. (since being able to "miss" a curse sounds abit silly to me).






Nah no turnbased...I'll think of a good way, cant think of any atm...

should i think about the transform into dragon flying, riding on a flying creature or both?
Posted By: Raze

Re: Wishlist - 14/12/06 08:46 PM

Flying would pretty much require a following camera perspective. First person would work, but why turn into a (hypothetical) dragon if you can not see yourself?

For flight you would need controls for speed, pitch (up/down - same controls as for forward/back on the ground) and yaw (left/right); roll should be handled automatically when turning, since there isn't really a need to independently rotate about the length of the dragon. Speed usually shouldn't need to be changed during an attack, but if you never need to change pitch (ie the angle of attack) fights would get kind of boring.

Between attack and flight controls, I think an automatic targeting system would be handy (without frequently pausing or turn based combat, I can not think of a way to fly and attack effectively if you have to select targets yourself). The closest opponent directly in front of you could be selected (maybe add a hotkey to cycle through available targets), allowing you to simply attack or left click an alternate target.

You can still click to move (fly to a point directly above the click), and ctrl-click to target the nearest opponent to the cursor, but that bypasses flight controls, and if your enemy has ranged weapons and decent aim, always flying in a straight line to attack isn't really a great idea.


It doesn't matter if you are flying yourself or on another creature for the purposes of the combat system, you still have to control both flight and attack.
Posted By: TheDivine

Re: Wishlist - 14/12/06 09:15 PM

perhaps there can be a quickkeys for diving, firebreathing and that kinda stuff (special attacks). I think autotargeting while flying is indeed a good idea.

Flying should be in 3rd person ye./
Posted By: isorun

Re: Wishlist - 14/12/06 09:53 PM

Imagine: You're flying while all of sudden you're attacked by harpies. you decide to fight them, and soon they got you totaly surounded, they're in front of you, behind you, at your left, at your right, beneath you, above you, and some on the ground. That means a lot of steering to kill those little bastards!
Still, love the idea to fly, kinda devil-trigger like in Devil May Cry (just love to fly around as Sparda)
If you would be flying on a dragon, would you need to click to let the dragon attack, or does it acts like henchman/partymembers, so you can set it to aggressive, defensive, passive,... cause like if you need to instruct the dragon, and you would like to fight yourself(I can already see myself on my black dragon, with my elven bow and my flame arrows and burning harpies everywhere ) it will be rather complicated.

About the invisibility, anybody thought about the 'Chameleon' spell of oblivion? It's with %. you could have different ranks then: fading for 30%, fading for 50%,...

Can't stop thinking about my wings, big black demon wings ,drool,
Posted By: HandEFood

Re: Wishlist - 14/12/06 11:17 PM

Have you played I of the Dragon? It's an action game where you are a dragon, fairly similar to Gauntlet. Movement in that was quite simple. Two keys adjusted your altitude, and you clicked on the ground to move above that point. A column of light shone from the ground where you're moving to, and a ball glowed in the column at your selected altitude. The dragon made his own choices as how to fly and turn there. Clicking on enemies would attack them with the selected weapon. If you selected a melee weapon (ie. pick them up in your claws and eat them) he'd swoop down and catch them mid-flight and then return to the safety of the skies. Regardless of whether you levitate or fly as a bird, this method can work.

As for combat, it very much depends on if it includes levitation-style, bird-style or both. Birds swooping opponents, raking them with swords and axes would be very impressive. Two birds fighting each other could be tricky. I've never seen AI handle this well. They usually end up circling each other getting nowhere.

For a levitator, combat can be roughly the same as ground combat. The main difference is the massive defensive bonus the levitator has. Anything fired at them would be over a longer distance and have to contend with wind, etc. A levitator throwing anything explosive at the grounded will have the benefit that even if they miss, the object will still explode upon hitting the ground. The grounded don't have that advantage throwing things into the air.

Another good point is gravity. The grounded strugle to shoot high enough to hit fliers. Of course, gravity works both ways. Should the flier take sufficient damage to knock them back in combat, the ground they fall on is a lot further away now.

There could be a whole sub-set of airborne combat skills like Swoop, Ride Wind, and any number of wind related spells and abilities.
Posted By: lepel

Re: Wishlist - 14/12/06 11:50 PM

Quote:

Flying would pretty much require a following camera perspective. First person would work, but why turn into a (hypothetical) dragon if you can not see yourself?


I really don't like First Person view in RPGs
Quote:


For flight you would need controls for speed, pitch (up/down - same controls as for forward/back on the ground) and yaw (left/right); roll should be handled automatically when turning, since there isn't really a need to independently rotate about the length of the dragon. Speed usually shouldn't need to be changed during an attack, but if you never need to change pitch (ie the angle of attack) fights would get kind of boring.



For speed you could use the same button as you would use for sprint.
wasd+mouse would do the trick moving around. And imo speed should be able to change during the attack thats one of the advantages of flying get some heigth first,
then drop down at an insane speed and your enemys won't know what hit them. And aiming at a target with a constant speed is alot easier as aiming at a target that can go from very fast to slow to not moving at all.
Quote:


Between attack and flight controls, I think an automatic targeting system would be handy (without frequently pausing or turn based combat, I can not think of a way to fly and attack effectively if you have to select targets yourself). The closest opponent directly in front of you could be selected (maybe add a hotkey to cycle through available targets), allowing you to simply attack or left click an alternate target.
You can still click to move (fly to a point directly above the click), and ctrl-click to target the nearest opponent to the cursor, but that bypasses flight controls, and if your enemy has ranged weapons and decent aim, always flying in a straight line to attack isn't really a great idea.
It doesn't matter if you are flying yourself or on another creature for the purposes of the combat system, you still have to control both flight and attack.




Imagine you are flying, in front of you are 10 enemys who are strong enough to survive more as one hit. Your char is a close combat fighter.
Now you don't want to finish them off one by one because else the other 9 could freely attack you.
Would you want to cycle through the targetting system to select the next enemy as you quickly fly in between and hit whoever comes close enough?
Imo it would be better to just hit and see if you hit them or not. Because auto targetting isn't effective when you are alone and fighting against a group.
And it does really matter if you are flying yourself or on another creature.
Because if you are flying yourself you couldn't really look left or right while flying somewhere,
but for example on the back of a dragon using a bow you should be able to tell the dragon fly overthere or circle around that enemy (or that group of enemys)
And use your bow to shoot them.
Offcourse if you use auto target (and the auto aim that comes with it)
it doesn't matter, but then you wouldn't really have to worry too much about the fighting since you just select a target start the attack and you fly around to keep yourself safe
(and the attack would continue untill the enemy is dead). But to me it would be like im playing as the dragon and not as the archer on its back.
Posted By: Elliot_Kane

Re: Wishlist - 15/12/06 03:41 AM

Assuming no zoom, I'd use the mouse wheel for up & down. If you can zoom in/out of the terrain, I'd use Ctrl-Mouse Wheel for up and down. Keeps it simple

As for combat - there will obviously be stuff that uses ranged weapons from the air, and they shouldn't be hittable with normal melee weapons - not unless the character can fly up to them. Obviously with the character flying, there will be monsters that are just sitting ducks - or running ducks. No reason they shouldn't run if they can't hit back, after all.

If a creature or character melees with a ground based opponent, they could get a height bonus on normal attacks and a charge bonus on first attack if they swoop - especially with a spear or lance or other long pointy polearm. Obviously they'd be attackable with melee weapons from the ground once they were in melee range.

That's how I'd do it
Posted By: Draghermosran

Re: Wishlist - 15/12/06 07:26 AM

WASD space ctrl
W pitch Down
A roll/turn left
S pitch up
D roll/turn right

space (or the button mapped to jump)
ctrl (or the button mapped to crouch if there was such ability)
: space & ctrl will allow you to change height vertical only, since dragons can hover locally.

mouse-movement: aiming, within the limits of the dragons neck, auto-aim would be enabled, since It would really hard to fly and aim at the same time; the mouse aiming would only be there to select targets, so you'll be able to choose your target if there are several.

Your flying mount would be able to perfectly gain height without the space and decrease heigth vise versa, no GTA flying controls wich are quite hard to handle. Even with two hands.
Posted By: Raze

Re: Wishlist - 15/12/06 07:29 AM

For speed you could use the same button as you would use for sprint.

Using the same walk/run toggle would only allow 2 flying speeds, but that may be sufficient.


wasd+mouse would do the trick moving around. And imo speed should be able to change during the attack thats one of the advantages of flying get some heigth first, then drop down at an insane speed and your enemys won't know what hit them.

Yes, but you do not actually change speed during the attack. An attack or defensive move may be proceeded by an increase or decrease in speed, but you would rarely try to change speed as you are in the middle of attacking.


aiming at a target with a constant speed is alot easier as aiming at a target that can go from very fast to slow to not moving at all.

In practice it is usually much easier to change direction than speed. If you are trying to get away from an attack you would probably already be going as fast as you could, and weaving / diving would be more effective than slowing down. Even if you keep a burst of speed in reserve, you can not outrun a lighting bolt.


Imagine you are flying, in front of you are 10 enemys who are strong enough to survive more as one hit. Your char is a close combat fighter.

If you can fly around in the form of a dragon you will have a ranged fire attack (or ice, etc). It doesn't make sense to have combat for a flying creature if it is restricted to melee attacks, and letting you be a dragon that couldn't breath fire would be terribly unfair.


Now you don't want to finish them off one by one because else the other 9 could freely attack you.

Without an area effect spell or fire attack you would have to finish them off one by one regardless of the combat controls.


Would you want to cycle through the targetting system to select the next enemy as you quickly fly in between and hit whoever comes close enough?

Firstly I would try to not be surrounded. Next I would attack the closest opponent repeatedly, using manual targeting if required, then move on to the next one. While I mentioned a hotkey to cycle through available targets, that would only be useful when there are relatively few opponents, or you just want to avoid targeting a specific one and don't care which alternate you get (ie leave a boss monster alone until you take out its support).


Imo it would be better to just hit and see if you hit them or not. Because auto targetting isn't effective when you are alone and fighting against a group.

So rather than having to manually target in certain situations you prefer to always have to manually pick a target?

Auto-targeting is not as selective when there are large groups of opponents. However, the game can rank wounded opponents higher than those at full health to make it easier to keep hitting the same one.


And it does really matter if you are flying yourself or on another creature.

Not unless you can put that creature on auto-pilot and have it fly itself. However, the possibility of combat in flight strongly implies you must both fly and fight. Just attacking while the computer flied or just flying while the computer attacked would be boring and pointless. Why would Larian go to the trouble of putting flying combat in the game if it was basically just using your character to attack from a glorified moving platform? Besides, melee characters on the back of a flying creature would be at a distinct disadvantage compared to archers or mages.


on the back of a dragon using a bow you should be able to tell the dragon fly overthere or circle around that enemy (or that group of enemys)

And if a mage shows up and starts casting magic missiles, would you then have to stop attacking, tell the dragon to take evasive action, then switch back to your character to attack? Even if the character doing the attacking and the creature/thing doing the flying are different, you must be able to control them simultaneously. If the controls are separate, coping with even very basic enemy AI would require a great deal of switching back and forth.


Offcourse if you use auto target (and the auto aim that comes with it)
it doesn't matter, but then you wouldn't really have to worry too much about the fighting since you just select a target start the attack and you fly around to keep yourself safe (and the attack would continue untill the enemy is dead).


You would have to break off the attack for evasive maneuvers, etc and you would loose the target when turning more than a little. Also, reasonably you could only attack when an opponent was below or in front of you. A dragon could not fly in a circle while continuously breathing fire at someone.

For dragon melee attacks you may be able to attack and have it continue until the opponent dies or you move, but that doesn't make much sense for ranged attacks. Also, if the enemy has a ranged weapon and decent aim you can not just hover and attack repeatedly. You are going to have to keep moving, so even under ideal circumstances you are only going to get a few attacks in before you pass over the target or otherwise have to break off the attack.


Speaking of hovering, if that is possible it should probably drain stamina more than flying fast. If dragons want to get away from a fight and take it easy they should either have to land somewhere or climb fairly high and glide.



For those that are interested, here are a couple links for the 'I of the Dragon' demo (228MB - here or here). Overall it is an ok action RPG, and worth trying if you like the idea of playing as a dragon. The combat isn't perfect (poor enemy AI, for the most part) but the controls are fairly effective and an example of trying to fly and fight.
In addition to the flight method HandEFood described, you can also use the arrow keys (forward/stop, left/right) which gives better control than clicking on the ground somewhere.
If you try the demo, catch something big and switch to first person perspective to eat it. The steers in the game tutorial area would be good for this, but IIRC the tutorial isn't included in the demo.
Posted By: lepel

Re: Wishlist - 15/12/06 02:33 PM

Quote:


aiming at a target with a constant speed is alot easier as aiming at a target that can go from very fast to slow to not moving at all.

In practice it is usually much easier to change direction than speed. If you are trying to get away from an attack you would probably already be going as fast as you could, and weaving / diving would be more effective than slowing down. Even if you keep a burst of speed in reserve, you can not outrun a lighting bolt.



I'm not saying you are trying to get away from the attack but trying to evade it. I wouldn't go full speed all the time when attacking someone (and evading their attacks) but I guess thats just my opinion.

Quote:


Imagine you are flying, in front of you are 10 enemys who are strong enough to survive more as one hit. Your char is a close combat fighter.

If you can fly around in the form of a dragon you will have a ranged fire attack (or ice, etc). It doesn't make sense to have combat for a flying creature if it is restricted to melee attacks, and letting you be a dragon that couldn't breath fire would be terribly unfair.



So are we gonna be dragons for sure ? this example wasn't about a dragon but about a close combat fighter. (= not a dragon)
And wouldn't you want people to be able to choose for a melee type of char ?
what if I want to mount the dragon (or some other flying creature)
and use a spear or something to kill my enemys with. So flying into the group of enemys you wouldn't want to have a target selected or use auto aim since you will just stick your spear in whoever comes close enough.
Quote:


Now you don't want to finish them off one by one because else the other 9 could freely attack you.

Without an area effect spell or fire attack you would have to finish them off one by one regardless of the combat controls.



...not really, you could hurt them as you fly by and as you turn and fly towards them again you might as well hit another enemy since the other enemy might be closer this time. OK, so you can't kill them all in the same hit. but you don't have to take them out one by one.

Quote:


Would you want to cycle through the targetting system to select the next enemy as you quickly fly in between and hit whoever comes close enough?

Firstly I would try to not be surrounded. Next I would attack the closest opponent repeatedly, using manual targeting if required, then move on to the next one. While I mentioned a hotkey to cycle through available targets, that would only be useful when there are relatively few opponents, or you just want to avoid targeting a specific one and don't care which alternate you get (ie leave a boss monster alone until you take out its support).



I'm not saying you will be surrounded because if you fly towards the enemys, they most likely will be facing you (else you could just hit them in the back). And as you fly by you already have some speed while those enemys don't so surrounded isn't the right term. And again finishing them off one by one is a bad strategic choice imo. (it depends on the situation and if you are alone or not) But alone vs a group taking them one by one shouldn't be able to work.
You are attacking just one target and the others are free to hit you and since you are focusing on that single enemy you will not really be able to defend yourself in a good way. (unless you have some seriously wicked skills I know nothing about) (and I know this is a ground to ground example, but in gothic 3 taking over a city from the orcs you would have to hit different chars to be able to defend yourself.)
Quote:


Imo it would be better to just hit and see if you hit them or not. Because auto targetting isn't effective when you are alone and fighting against a group.

So rather than having to manually target in certain situations you prefer to always have to manually pick a target?

Auto-targeting is not as selective when there are large groups of opponents. However, the game can rank wounded opponents higher than those at full health to make it easier to keep hitting the same one.



Why do you really want to target the enemys ? I just want to hit in about the same way gothic 3 does. (but worked out better)
I don't want so select targets (unless when using some spells for example curses) And if it would require targeting, yes I would like to manually pick the targets.
Quote:


And it does really matter if you are flying yourself or on another creature.
Not unless you can put that creature on auto-pilot and have it fly itself. However, the possibility of combat in flight strongly implies you must both fly and fight. Just attacking while the computer flied or just flying while the computer attacked would be boring and pointless. Why would Larian go to the trouble of putting flying combat in the game if it was basically just using your character to attack from a glorified moving platform? Besides, melee characters on the back of a flying creature would be at a distinct disadvantage compared to archers or mages.




Well but unless we are the dragon it would be too weird for me to be able to control it as if it was my own char. We should be able to control it in a way but more like giving it commands. I don't want the game to be like a crazy mod of a modern combat flying game. (so don't control the dragon like a fighter jet)
I really don't want to get the feeling the dragon is just a reskinned fighter jet. So unless we get wings in some way (evolving or some sort of being able to wear wings). I don't think we should be able to control the flying too much.
You could still use the wasd keys to move it, but more to evade things or fly closer to enemys than really controlling the dragons every move. And melee characters always have some sort of disadvantage versus ranged chars. But when they do get close they really are lethal.
Quote:


on the back of a dragon using a bow you should be able to tell the dragon fly overthere or circle around that enemy (or that group of enemys)

And if a mage shows up and starts casting magic missiles, would you then have to stop attacking, tell the dragon to take evasive action, then switch back to your character to attack? Even if the character doing the attacking and the creature/thing doing the flying are different, you must be able to control them simultaneously. If the controls are separate, coping with even very basic enemy AI would require a great deal of switching back and forth.



why would we have to stop attacking ? and switching and all that ? did you really think this through ? so you really want a combat flying game where they made the fighting jets look like dragons ?

Quote:


Offcourse if you use auto target (and the auto aim that comes with it)
it doesn't matter, but then you wouldn't really have to worry too much about the fighting since you just select a target start the attack and you fly around to keep yourself safe (and the attack would continue untill the enemy is dead).


You would have to break off the attack for evasive maneuvers, etc and you would loose the target when turning more than a little. Also, reasonably you could only attack when an opponent was below or in front of you. A dragon could not fly in a circle while continuously breathing fire at someone.

For dragon melee attacks you may be able to attack and have it continue until the opponent dies or you move, but that doesn't make much sense for ranged attacks. Also, if the enemy has a ranged weapon and decent aim you can not just hover and attack repeatedly. You are going to have to keep moving, so even under ideal circumstances you are only going to get a few attacks in before you pass over the target or otherwise have to break off the attack.

Speaking of hovering, if that is possible it should probably drain stamina more than flying fast. If dragons want to get away from a fight and take it easy they should either have to land somewhere or climb fairly high and glide.



So we really are gonna be dragons ? Are you sure about this ?
A fighting system with us just hopping on the back of our flying creature would be really hard and very different from a fighting system where we are the flying creature. We can't control the creature we are flying as well as ourselves at least I think it should be like that.

And I don't want to offend you in any way but reading some comments made it look like you enabled some sort of "ignore whatever he is typing mode" and just comment further on your own post instead of mine.



Posted By: TheDivine

Re: Wishlist - 15/12/06 04:27 PM

Als antwoord op:

Assuming no zoom, I'd use the mouse wheel for up & down. If you can zoom in/out of the terrain, I'd use Ctrl-Mouse Wheel for up and down. Keeps it simple

As for combat - there will obviously be stuff that uses ranged weapons from the air, and they shouldn't be hittable with normal melee weapons - not unless the character can fly up to them. Obviously with the character flying, there will be monsters that are just sitting ducks - or running ducks. No reason they shouldn't run if they can't hit back, after all.

If a creature or character melees with a ground based opponent, they could get a height bonus on normal attacks and a charge bonus on first attack if they swoop - especially with a spear or lance or other long pointy polearm. Obviously they'd be attackable with melee weapons from the ground once they were in melee range.

That's how I'd do it




mouseweel could turn out good or really bad.
Posted By: Raze

Re: Wishlist - 16/12/06 12:49 AM

I'm not saying you are trying to get away from the attack but trying to evade it.

Changing direction is still a lot easier than changing speed, especially when flying. Trying to maneuver and attack and change speed is too much to try all at the same time. I'm not saying you should never change speed, just that it is usually impractical during an attack and less effective than maneuvering.


I wouldn't go full speed all the time when attacking someone (and evading their attacks) but I guess thats just my opinion.

In nature things being chased run pretty much at full speed; things doing the chasing may have started off waiting or slowly stalking, but once the attack starts they go pretty much full speed. There may be a little extra both can do, but they change direction a lot more than speed.


So are we gonna be dragons for sure ?

Someone posted some time ago that they saw a preview of the game and the only thing they could say about it was you would be able to transform into a dragon. I tried looking for the post briefly, but couldn't find it.


And wouldn't you want people to be able to choose for a melee type of char ?

I'm all for choice in type of character, and usually favour melee myself.


So flying into the group of enemys you wouldn't want to have a target selected or use auto aim since you will just stick your spear in whoever comes close enough.

So fly by, start swinging and hope you get close enough to hit something? Without some form of targeting, the timing that would be required for this is much greater than for the proposed ground based micromanaged fighting systems.

If you get rid of targeting, that means ranged attacks would not be targeted either. These characters would have to just point themselves towards an opponents and start firing.


...not really, you could hurt them as you fly by and as you turn and fly towards them again you might as well hit another enemy since the other enemy might be closer this time. OK, so you can't kill them all in the same hit. but you don't have to take them out one by one.

Given a choice between targets in a group, it would be much more effective to attack one that is already injured. I didn't mean that you had to kill them in order, just that it would be much better to do full damage to half your opponents (so half were left that could attack) than to do half damage to all your opponents (in which case all could still attack).


But alone vs a group taking them one by one shouldn't be able to work.
You are attacking just one target and the others are free to hit you and since you are focusing on that single enemy you will not really be able to defend yourself in a good way.


Without an area effect spell or something you are always only going to be able to attack one at a time, so the remainder are always going to be able to attack you. You don't ignore everyone but the first one you hit, but if you are able to attack that one again rather than one at full strength, do so.

About the only time you would want to exclusively target a specific opponent in a group is if you have a strong enemy doing a lot of damage (ie a mage shooting fire balls at you) surrounded by weaker creatures.


Why do you really want to target the enemys ?

Because I don't want a micromanaged fighting system that is heavily biased towards melee fighting and focuses on the player's coordination and reaction time rather than the character's skills and abilities.


I just want to hit in about the same way gothic 3 does.

How does Gothic 3 handle ranged combat?


I don't want so select targets (unless when using some spells for example curses) And if it would require targeting, yes I would like to manually pick the targets.

How would you choose the targets?
The only thing I can think of to fly, attack and target at the same time is to have your left hand on the wasd keys for flight control (the left hand could also take care of pausing and potions) and use the mouse to select and attack. This would mean trying to click on a moving target that is changing direction while the screen focus is also changing direction in response to your flying.
Of course if dragons do not have spells then in your fight system there would be no need to fly and target at the same time.


Well but unless we are the dragon it would be too weird for me to be able to control it as if it was my own char. We should be able to control it in a way but more like giving it commands. I don't want the game to be like a crazy mod of a modern combat flying game. (so don't control the dragon like a fighter jet)

So lack of targeting would reduce ranged characters to maneuvering straight towards an opponent so they could start firing and then adjust their heading to hit the opponent as required, but you don't want the fight system to emulate a jet fighter????


You could still use the wasd keys to move it, but more to evade things or fly closer to enemys than really controlling the dragons every move.

I don't see the difference between using the wasd keys to move the dragon and using them to control it. You still have to use the keys, which puts limitations on what else you can control at the same time.


And melee characters always have some sort of disadvantage versus ranged chars. But when they do get close they really are lethal.

When fighting on the ground you can always get close. To allow a melee character to fight on a flying creature the game would have to be biased so that no creature could fly faster than you could (so nothing could hit and run repeatedly) and there were no effective ranged attacks.


why would we have to stop attacking ? and switching and all that ? did you really think this through ?

Ok, you are flying in a circle and an opponent on the ground has a ranged attack. Since you have a very predictable flight pattern even a simple enemy AI would be able to quite consistently hit your mount, thus killing it. Once dead it would fall to the ground, as would your character, which would be fatal.

Do you still see no need to simultaneously control both the flight and fighting?


so you really want a combat flying game where they made the fighting jets look like dragons ?

You seem to have no trouble advocating a control system which has been used in a different genre of game.

Flying is movement in 3 dimensions, and in order to have guided flight you must have a certain level of control. It doesn't matter if the thing flying is a dragon a jet or an alien, you still have the same physical restrictions and requirements. There is also fighting, which requires additional controls. In order to fly and fight at the same time, some controls must be automatic (roll left/right) and some optional (such as speed).

As for input, everyone is restricted to (at most) two hands, and the controls must be at least functional with a keyboard and mouse. Given the requirements of flying and fighting and the restrictions of input, I would think it impossible to come up with an effective control system that is completely unique.

The point of this discussion is for Larian to get a sense of what people want to control and what they would let the computer control. Since you want a very manual fight system you don't need any targeting, so the basic flight and attack controls are adequate. I don't want micromanaged fighting, so require a way to select opponents. Given the restrictions on controlling flight, attacking and targeting I can not think of a good way to do everything at once, so need to make further choices as to what is important (which for me results in the need for an auto-target system).



And I don't want to offend you in any way but reading some comments made it look like you enabled some sort of "ignore whatever he is typing mode" and just comment further on your own post instead of mine.

We are having a conversation. It isn't a question of ignoring you; if I believe you have missed the point of something I've said I will try to clarify it (as I expect you to do with me). If I realize I have missed the point of something you said (ie I didn't realize at first that you didn't want any targeting at all) then my earlier comments may be slightly off and I might also need to clarify or redirect them. If you bring up a point that gets me thinking about something else, I'll go with that. If some point or example I am making brings up something new (like hovering) that I wish to make a short side comment about, I don't think it is out of place to do so in the same post. The footnote about the game demo was to give an example of a control system to fly and fight, and is relevant to the overall conversation even if it is not directly in response to our own. If you can think of a game with a micromanaged fight system for a flying character, similar to what you would like, feel free to mention it so people can check out the demo.
Posted By: Lurker

Re: Wishlist - 16/12/06 04:45 AM

I don't think the wealth of options previously mentioned for "active combat" systems would work well if flight is controlled at the same time – that would be too many keys to press simultaneously. However, that also depends on how flying opponents fight. One can think of a rather stationary battle where the opponents more or less hover, move only slightly back and forth (as well as up and down) or circle each other while almost continually attacking each other – comparable to the ground combat of opponents on foot. There could also be a battle comparable to the fight of knights with lances on horseback: They charge at each other (or one of them at the other one), only trying to hit when they are close to each other ... and maybe using ranged weapons the rest of the time.

For type A fights, combat controls might not need to be changed much compared to previous suggestions, as there isn't much movement necessary while the fight goes on. At least for type B fights, I'd like to have some auto-assistance, I guess. I'd prefer the controls for flying to be simple and not too much like a flight simulator. Any man-sized or larger creature that can fly in a fantasy world would probably need some magical assistance to do so, thus I wouldn't mind if flight were different from what it is for birds/planes/whatever in the real world.

I can also imagine leaving the flying to the computer during a fight, especially if the player character is just the rider. You could give some general rules on what your steed should do, much like you'd set actions for your companions on the ground. A click on the ground or on an enemy would be enough to override those general rules and bring you there (without changing height) or make your steed follow the selected enemy. It's like shouting commands to your steed: It follows them, but they aren't precise enough to make you feel like you'd fly on your own.

Fully controlling how your steed moves would be an option, however. In most RPGs you have full control of the horse you ride, so if it's possible to ride a flying creature, I see no reason why one shouldn't be able to control it as if it was one's own character – as long as this can be done in a simple way.

Another thing that crossed my mind: If we get to play a dragon, weight might play an important part in speed considerations. A dragon should quickly gain momentum when diving, while going up might be a way to quickly lose speed. Of course, that's based on the assumption that dragon flight also relies on the dragon wings and isn't purely magical.

Melee combat against many enemies at the same time, by the way, should be much more dangerous than if you fight them one at a time – and one should also gain more experience from it. The picture of someone cutting through a host of enemies while hardly getting hit is quite heroic, but not very believable. If you assume that you don't get hit because you deflect your enemies' blows with your own weapon, you should only be able to defend against a limited number of foes at a time, probably based on your fighting prowess. A typical mage might only be able to use his staff against one enemy's attacks, a skilled fighter would perhaps be able to deflect the weapons of three enemies – unless magically hasted. All other enemies in close combat range should get a considerable bonus on their attacks. Of course, a hit wouldn't necessarily cause damage if your opponents can't penetrate your diamond armour, but they might still be able to send you to the ground, making it easier again to hit you or to use some nasty special attack on you.

Something I'd also really like to see in combat is intelligent foes who know how to use the available tactical options, however they may look like, to their advantage. In my eyes, it's better to have a smaller arsenal of skills and spells which the AI can handle than a larger range of abilities most of which are never used by any computer-controlled creature or character – or if so, only in a random or stupid manner.

If the player character becomes famous, intelligent enemies might develop countermeasures to tactics he/she is known to use often. They might focus on his/her vulnerabilities if they are able to discover any; differing enemy behaviour would also increase the replayability. They should take cover when being attacked from the sky without having ranged weapons. And many should try to flee if they realize they don't stand a chance against the player character. Most living beings aren't very fond of the prospect to die at the hands of someone who has just easily killed several of their comrades. Simple undead would be a notable exception; orcs and some human fighters might be if they believe that defeat equals dishonour, but death in battle is honourable. And since we just touched it: The various races and factions of the game should be deeply embedded in a rich background of cultural traditions and philosophies.

Posted By: lepel

Re: Wishlist - 16/12/06 12:36 PM

Quote:

I don't think the wealth of options previously mentioned for "active combat" systems would work well if flight is controlled at the same time – that would be too many keys to press simultaneously. However, that also depends on how flying opponents fight. One can think of a rather stationary battle where the opponents more or less hover, move only slightly back and forth (as well as up and down) or circle each other while almost continually attacking each other – comparable to the ground combat of opponents on foot. There could also be a battle comparable to the fight of knights with lances on horseback: They charge at each other (or one of them at the other one), only trying to hit when they are close to each other ... and maybe using ranged weapons the rest of the time.



well yeah something comparable to knights with lances might work, but air to air it would be quite a distance to fall. So you can't ever lose and live to tell.
(but I guess that wouldn't be a problem)
Quote:


I can also imagine leaving the flying to the computer during a fight, especially if the player character is just the rider. You could give some general rules on what your steed should do, much like you'd set actions for your companions on the ground. A click on the ground or on an enemy would be enough to override those general rules and bring you there (without changing height) or make your steed follow the selected enemy. It's like shouting commands to your steed: It follows them, but they aren't precise enough to make you feel like you'd fly on your own.
Fully controlling how your steed moves would be an option, however. In most RPGs you have full control of the horse you ride, so if it's possible to ride a flying creature, I see no reason why one shouldn't be able to control it as if it was one's own character – as long as this can be done in a simple way.



So wich one do you prefer ? Unless we aren't the flying creature ourselves we really shouldn't be able to control it as well.
Or maybe like in Zelda OoT (forgot what it was like in the other zelda games)
we can control the horse (flying creature) easily when riding or in this case flying(wasd+mouse, also for height).
But you can't really see what you are doing when drawing your bow and riding the horse
(you can look left and right, while as you were the flying creature looking left and right would be alot harder).
And you can still control the horse as you are using the bow, but for example when there's a wall in front of you.
Your creature shouldn't be dumb enough to just keep flying towards the wall to hit it with its head.
So I would want to be able to give the creature a mind of its own.
Targetting might work when going after one single enemy just telling your creature to follow that target but still use manual aim for bows, fire balls, etc...
Quote:


Another thing that crossed my mind: If we get to play a dragon, weight might play an important part in speed considerations. A dragon should quickly gain momentum when diving, while going up might be a way to quickly lose speed. Of course, that's based on the assumption that dragon flight also relies on the dragon wings and isn't purely magical.



Personally I would want the flying rely on wings (dragon or not) I'm not really in favor of the superman flying style.
So I would want the speed to increase when diving and to lose speed when going up.
Quote:


Melee combat against many enemies at the same time, by the way, should be much more dangerous than if you fight them one at a time – and one should also gain more experience from it. The picture of someone cutting through a host of enemies while hardly getting hit is quite heroic, but not very believable. If you assume that you don't get hit because you deflect your enemies' blows with your own weapon, you should only be able to defend against a limited number of foes at a time, probably based on your fighting prowess. A typical mage might only be able to use his staff against one enemy's attacks, a skilled fighter would perhaps be able to deflect the weapons of three enemies – unless magically hasted. All other enemies in close combat range should get a considerable bonus on their attacks. Of course, a hit wouldn't necessarily cause damage if your opponents can't penetrate your diamond armour, but they might still be able to send you to the ground, making it easier again to hit you or to use some nasty special attack on you.



Thats only assuming the other enemys would stay off your back when attacking a group.
One way could be to lure them one by one but they really shouldn't be this dumb.
(There could be a specific dumb kind of creatures that would let this happen, but not all creatures should be this dumb)
But as I mentioned, in gothic 3 attacking different enemys sometimes had to be done because different enemys were attacking you.
You wouldn't be able to fight them one by one because you would be dead in no time. At least it was this way for me. So more a defensive counterattack style of fighting would be required.
Unless you could use very high speed to your advantage and fly through them (in the same way as the knights with their lance) and just hit the enemys with your lance/spear or whatever. Maybe you would pass them so that they could only attack your left side and thus making defending yourself alot easier.

Quote:


Something I'd also really like to see in combat is intelligent foes who know how to use the available tactical options, however they may look like, to their advantage. In my eyes, it's better to have a smaller arsenal of skills and spells which the AI can handle than a larger range of abilities most of which are never used by any computer-controlled creature or character – or if so, only in a random or stupid manner.


Or how about the way guild wars does this ? there are plenty of skills but you can only take some (8) with you. The same goes for your enemys (weaker creatures usually have less).
Quote:


If the player character becomes famous, intelligent enemies might develop countermeasures to tactics he/she is known to use often. They might focus on his/her vulnerabilities if they are able to discover any; differing enemy behaviour would also increase the replayability. They should take cover when being attacked from the sky without having ranged weapons. And many should try to flee if they realize they don't stand a chance against the player character. Most living beings aren't very fond of the prospect to die at the hands of someone who has just easily killed several of their comrades. Simple undead would be a notable exception; orcs and some human fighters might be if they believe that defeat equals dishonour, but death in battle is honourable. And since we just touched it: The various races and factions of the game should be deeply embedded in a rich background of cultural traditions and philosophies.



I wouldn't want my enemys to live to tell about my fighting style.
But maybe as I am fighting the more intelligent creatures, they would learn from my attacks and won't make the same mistake twice.
About the fleeing that depends on the situation, because I can imagine that dieing from my hands would be better for them than dieing from their bosses hand.
(Has even been done by humans so why not in a RPG world). But once their boss is dead and they know they don't stand a chance, they might run.
But I agree that The various races and factions of the game should be deeply embedded in a rich background of cultural traditions and philosophies.
So they shouldn't all stay because they feared their boss (or stay for honour).
Posted By: lepel

Re: Wishlist - 16/12/06 06:45 PM

Quote:

I'm not saying you are trying to get away from the attack but trying to evade it.
Changing direction is still a lot easier than changing speed, especially when flying. Trying to maneuver and attack and change speed is too much to try all at the same time. I'm not saying you should never change speed, just that it is usually impractical during an attack and less effective than maneuvering.
I wouldn't go full speed all the time when attacking someone (and evading their attacks) but I guess thats just my opinion.
In nature things being chased run pretty much at full speed; things doing the chasing may have started off waiting or slowly stalking, but once the attack starts they go pretty much full speed. There may be a little extra both can do, but they change direction a lot more than speed.



Well I guess this is just our different opinion not much else to say about it.(But what you said was assuming one tried to run from the attack more as both trying to take on eachother)
Quote:


So are we gonna be dragons for sure ?

Someone posted some time ago that they saw a preview of the game and the only thing they could say about it was you would be able to transform into a dragon. I tried looking for the post briefly, but couldn't find it.



ok thanks, I didn't know.(or I forgot ) Anyway I really hope the dragons will be very different depending on our character choices. At least different looking.
Quote:


So flying into the group of enemys you wouldn't want to have a target selected or use auto aim since you will just stick your spear in whoever comes close enough.

So fly by, start swinging and hope you get close enough to hit something? Without some form of targeting, the timing that would be required for this is much greater than for the proposed ground based micromanaged fighting systems.

If you get rid of targeting, that means ranged attacks would not be targeted either. These characters would have to just point themselves towards an opponents and start firing.


Well personally I'm really against auto-aim attacks (only curses or similar type of attacks or charm spells or the like should be without aim, imo). I do understand that some people would want to be a fearsome fighter without having to time their every move and learn some combos or whatever. But I don't like fighting like that.
But now that I can assume we are gonna be dragons, I can also assume the dragon won't be holding any spears or lances or something similar.
(and being a dragon without some really cool skills would be kinda lame)
I guess the only way to keep us both (and prolly more people too) happy is to be able to enable some sort of auto attack. I don't mean you don't have to do anything when fighting, but just that the non-auto attack would require timing and fast button pressing and enable some skills as combos. While in the auto-attack mode you wouldn't need to have that timing or fast button pressing ability since the computer would just use the same attacks but automatic. Offcourse this doesn't mean that fighting is gonna be dull. The way I see it there should still be some skills (6 or 8 or something) that can be used by the numeric or function keys.
(so much in the same way guild wars does it) these skills would be different when we are a dragon and some would be better for air to air and some better for air to ground. (example: I think fire breath would be better for air to ground as for air to air. Since on the ground there are less ways to escape from the fire)

Quote:


...not really, you could hurt them as you fly by and as you turn and fly towards them again you might as well hit another enemy since the other enemy might be closer this time. OK, so you can't kill them all in the same hit. but you don't have to take them out one by one.

Given a choice between targets in a group, it would be much more effective to attack one that is already injured. I didn't mean that you had to kill them in order, just that it would be much better to do full damage to half your opponents (so half were left that could attack) than to do half damage to all your opponents (in which case all could still attack).


I guess I understood you wrong. Offcourse that would be better from a strategic point of view. But as I think I said before, for example in Gothic 3 I really had to hit different enemys as they would all come for me and I couldn't really choose who to attack. And to me this makes sense since those enemys would prolly be working together and won't let you take out one of them without them all attacking you. It was more fighting them off, keeping myself safe and counterattacking.
But now that I can assume we will be the dragon ourselves I need to rethink the matter. Because the kind of skills used need to be very different now for the combat system I want.

Quote:


But alone vs a group taking them on one by one shouldn't be able to work.
You are attacking just one target and the others are free to hit you and since you are focusing on that single enemy you will not really be able to defend yourself in a good way.


Without an area effect spell or something you are always only going to be able to attack one at a time, so the remainder are always going to be able to attack you. You don't ignore everyone but the first one you hit, but if you are able to attack that one again rather than one at full strength, do so.

About the only time you would want to exclusively target a specific opponent in a group is if you have a strong enemy doing a lot of damage (ie a mage shooting fire balls at you) surrounded by weaker creatures.



Yes you attack them one at a time, but more as one attack against this enemy and then the next attack against another enemy since he came dangerously close.

Quote:


Why do you really want to target the enemys ?

Because I don't want a micromanaged fighting system that is heavily biased towards melee fighting and focuses on the player's coordination and reaction time rather than the character's skills and abilities.



I wouldn't want it to be heavily biased towards melee fighting, although this is often (or always for as far as I know) the case. Our opinions differ abit too much I guess, but what about the option to enable auto-attack ? (It would take some time balancing it out, but I think it could be done, it will not be easy to make it work though)

Quote:


I just want to hit in about the same way gothic 3 does.

How does Gothic 3 handle ranged combat?


It uses manual aim and doesn't require you to target your enemys. But it was more for the melee type of attacks that I referred to Gothic 3. I do want manual aim and I do not want to target enemys (with again the exception of some skills/spells).

Quote:


I don't want so select targets (unless when using some spells for example curses) And if it would require targeting, yes I would like to manually pick the targets.

How would you choose the targets?
The only thing I can think of to fly, attack and target at the same time is to have your left hand on the wasd keys for flight control (the left hand could also take care of pausing and potions) and use the mouse to select and attack. This would mean trying to click on a moving target that is changing direction while the screen focus is also changing direction in response to your flying.
Of course if dragons do not have spells then in your fight system there would be no need to fly and target at the same time.


Offcourse dragons should have spells (if we are gonna be the dragons ourselves) I wouldn't mind trying to click on a moving target while the focus of my screen is changing. But you assume that all spells/skills would require you to select a target and I wouldn't like that.

Quote:


Well but unless we are the dragon it would be too weird for me to be able to control it as if it was my own char. We should be able to control it in a way but more like giving it commands. I don't want the game to be like a crazy mod of a modern combat flying game. (so don't control the dragon like a fighter jet)

So lack of targeting would reduce ranged characters to maneuvering straight towards an opponent so they could start firing and then adjust their heading to hit the opponent as required, but you don't want the fight system to emulate a jet fighter????


You could still use the wasd keys to move it, but more to evade things or fly closer to enemys than really controlling the dragons every move.

I don't see the difference between using the wasd keys to move the dragon and using them to control it. You still have to use the keys, which puts limitations on what else you can control at the same time.


Well no need to go into this any further since I can assume we will be the dragons ourselves.

Quote:


And melee characters always have some sort of disadvantage versus ranged chars. But when they do get close they really are lethal.

When fighting on the ground you can always get close. To allow a melee character to fight on a flying creature the game would have to be biased so that no creature could fly faster than you could (so nothing could hit and run repeatedly) and there were no effective ranged attacks.


The same goes for our plain old ground to ground attacks, why would it be different for air to air or air to ground. You can get close because it is biased, else some fast running ranged attack user could always just hit, run abit hit again, run abit,... with you just running behind it staying out of reach. I don't see why this is suddenly different in air to air.

Quote:


why would we have to stop attacking ? and switching and all that ? did you really think this through ?

Ok, you are flying in a circle and an opponent on the ground has a ranged attack. Since you have a very predictable flight pattern even a simple enemy AI would be able to quite consistently hit your mount, thus killing it. Once dead it would fall to the ground, as would your character, which would be fatal.

Do you still see no need to simultaneously control both the flight and fighting?



Offcourse you forgot my ability to summon a trampoline .
But well I'll just assume we are the dragons ourselves untill larian tells us otherwise.
Quote:


so you really want a combat flying game where they made the fighting jets look like dragons ?

You seem to have no trouble advocating a control system which has been used in a different genre of game.

Flying is movement in 3 dimensions, and in order to have guided flight you must have a certain level of control. It doesn't matter if the thing flying is a dragon a jet or an alien, you still have the same physical restrictions and requirements. There is also fighting, which requires additional controls. In order to fly and fight at the same time, some controls must be automatic (roll left/right) and some optional (such as speed).

As for input, everyone is restricted to (at most) two hands, and the controls must be at least functional with a keyboard and mouse. Given the requirements of flying and fighting and the restrictions of input, I would think it impossible to come up with an effective control system that is completely unique.

The point of this discussion is for Larian to get a sense of what people want to control and what they would let the computer control. Since you want a very manual fight system you don't need any targeting, so the basic flight and attack controls are adequate. I don't want micromanaged fighting, so require a way to select opponents. Given the restrictions on controlling flight, attacking and targeting I can not think of a good way to do everything at once, so need to make further choices as to what is important (which for me results in the need for an auto-target system).


Well you could be right and maybe I didn't think it really through before I made this comment. That doesn't change however that I still don't like auto target and auto aim. The whole fighting could be done differently since I'm assuming that we are the dragon ourselves now.

Again I guess the only way to keep us both happy is to give people a way to bypass the manual fighting system with just one click in the options menu.
This would prolly make the game harder for the people that prefer manual fighting systems but I wouldn't mind.
Flying only changes one thing for me, we have an extra dimension to move in.
When being the dragon I would just use wasd to keep the horizontal movement as we are used to on the ground. And use to mouse to control the flying and the targetting/aiming. One button could be used to toggle between fly mode/target mode.
Quote:


And I don't want to offend you in any way but reading some comments made it look like you enabled some sort of "ignore whatever he is typing mode" and just comment further on your own post instead of mine.

We are having a conversation. It isn't a question of ignoring you; if I believe you have missed the point of something I've said I will try to clarify it (as I expect you to do with me). If I realize I have missed the point of something you said (ie I didn't realize at first that you didn't want any targeting at all) then my earlier comments may be slightly off and I might also need to clarify or redirect them. If you bring up a point that gets me thinking about something else, I'll go with that. If some point or example I am making brings up something new (like hovering) that I wish to make a short side comment about, I don't think it is out of place to do so in the same post. The footnote about the game demo was to give an example of a control system to fly and fight, and is relevant to the overall conversation even if it is not directly in response to our own. If you can think of a game with a micromanaged fight system for a flying character, similar to what you would like, feel free to mention it so people can check out the demo.



Ok sorry about saying that. But I guess I got alittle bit frustrated because I wasn't able to explain my opinion properly.
Posted By: Raze

Re: Wishlist - 17/12/06 10:32 AM

Quote:

Quote:

When fighting on the ground you can always get close. To allow a melee character to fight on a flying creature the game would have to be biased so that no creature could fly faster than you could (so nothing could hit and run repeatedly) and there were no effective ranged attacks.



The same goes for our plain old ground to ground attacks, why would it be different for air to air or air to ground. You can get close because it is biased, else some fast running ranged attack user could always just hit, run abit hit again, run abit,... with you just running behind it staying out of reach. I don't see why this is suddenly different in air to air.




In most traditional RPGs flying creatures were limited for balancing reasons, to allow for melee only characters. Adding the ability to fly (especially with a creature having a natural ranged weapon in a lot of mythology) and keeping all the same limitations and restrictions seems like a waste of potential. Why fly if you are fighting the exact same types of monsters with the same behaviour as you were on the ground?


Thinking about this some more, melee only dragons wouldn't necessarily force ranged weapons to be restricted as much as they traditionally have. Any flying creatures with ranged attacks would have to be in areas inaccessible to the character in human form, though, unless there was enough cover to protect them.
Effective ranged attacks would make melee dragons have to attack fast (dive from above, grab something, kill it and break away before hitting the ground), use surprise (sun/clouds as cover, or some kind of stealth magic) or brute force (frontal attack trying to avoid as much as possible, using a magical shield or possibly even picking something up and carrying it to protect against attacks from below).

There would still have to be limits to the number of creatures in a group with ranged attacks. In some cases perhaps attacking the leader first would cause the rest to scatter, giving you time to go after some of them before they could regroup.



Speaking of picking things up as a dragon, it would be cool to be able to grab stuff (trees, boulders, cows...) to carry somewhere and drop on an opponent. Of course the environment would already have to be at least partly movable and destructible for anything like this to be implemented.
Posted By: lepel

Re: Wishlist - 17/12/06 12:42 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

When fighting on the ground you can always get close. To allow a melee character to fight on a flying creature the game would have to be biased so that no creature could fly faster than you could (so nothing could hit and run repeatedly) and there were no effective ranged attacks.



The same goes for our plain old ground to ground attacks, why would it be different for air to air or air to ground. You can get close because it is biased, else some fast running ranged attack user could always just hit, run abit hit again, run abit,... with you just running behind it staying out of reach. I don't see why this is suddenly different in air to air.




In most traditional RPGs flying creatures were limited for balancing reasons, to allow for melee only characters. Adding the ability to fly (especially with a creature having a natural ranged weapon in a lot of mythology) and keeping all the same limitations and restrictions seems like a waste of potential. Why fly if you are fighting the exact same types of monsters with the same behaviour as you were on the ground?

Thinking about this some more, melee only dragons wouldn't necessarily force ranged weapons to be restricted as much as they traditionally have. Any flying creatures with ranged attacks would have to be in areas inaccessible to the character in human form, though, unless there was enough cover to protect them.
Effective ranged attacks would make melee dragons have to attack fast (dive from above, grab something, kill it and break away before hitting the ground), use surprise (sun/clouds as cover, or some kind of stealth magic) or brute force (frontal attack trying to avoid as much as possible, using a magical shield or possibly even picking something up and carrying it to protect against attacks from below).

There would still have to be limits to the number of creatures in a group with ranged attacks. In some cases perhaps attacking the leader first would cause the rest to scatter, giving you time to go after some of them before they could regroup.

Speaking of picking things up as a dragon, it would be cool to be able to grab stuff (trees, boulders, cows...) to carry somewhere and drop on an opponent. Of course the environment would already have to be at least partly movable and destructible for anything like this to be implemented.



Well yeah what I said was just about the melee type of char mounted on a dragon. And eventhough I responded to most of the posts by saying ok its different since we are the dragons, I felt the need to go into this subject further. If we are the dragon offcourse we need at least the dragons fire breath. But if we aren't and the dragons are used as mounts, it would have to be balanced just as it would be on the ground. Picking stuff up as a dragon and dropping them elsewhere could be something really nice to implement. But I would want the dragon to be able to pick up ground enemys as well fly high with them and dropping the enemy inside another group of enemys (or just on the ground) or maybe eat them
And I would want the dragons to have some more magical skills too.

btw: what kind of dragons are we thinking about ?
I have a link to Wikipedias dragon website here. But if anyone knows a better website please give us (or me) the link.

And what do you think about the option about the manual attack that with one click in the options menu is turned into an auto attack ? (as described in my previous post)
Do you think this might work or isn't that kind of auto-attack the kind you want.
As for controlling the dragon, maybe left click would be an attack with the claws, right click the fire breath, both mousebuttons to grab an enemy or object. And maybe some simple combinations will give some other attacks or different claw attacks.
Posted By: isorun

Re: Wishlist - 17/12/06 01:51 PM

About the appearance of the dragons(if you transform in the dragon, not as a mount): I think that it should resemble your 'reputation' a bit. Like an evil character would change in a Black Dragon with little holes in its wings(like Illidan in Warcraft 3:TFT), and Paladin-like charactes maybe some sort of Golden Dragon with some sort of shining aura, or make it completly adjustable, like when you get the 'skill' to change into a dragon, be able to choose how it looks: its colour, its wings, its size, type of head, maybe with some attributes like strength, speed, intelligence. Strength would increase the damage, Speed would increase the dragons maximum Flying/Turning speed, Intelligence increasing manapool so the dragon can cast more magical attacks(maybe something like 'Firestorm' so that a whole area is set on fire, or 'Devour', picking up an enemy and slowly devour him while you regain health)
If the dragon would be a mount, i think it would be cool to first get some sort of egg that hatches, and after that it grows in physical size every time it levels up, and at a certain point it would be big enough to actually mount it so you can fly with it.
If there would be henchman/partymembers, how would they follow you if you mounted a flying creature/changed into a dragon? would they also have flying mounts/Dragon Form? Or does this mean there will be no party members?
And if you would be able to change into a dragon, it would also afect the 'map-system'. Like if you use these 'gates', how are you going to make the borders inpassable, as mountains or trees can no longer limit a flying creature, it just needs to fly higher to get over them.

Posted By: lepel

Re: Wishlist - 17/12/06 02:37 PM

Quote:

About the appearance of the dragons(if you transform in the dragon, not as a mount): I think that it should resemble your 'reputation' a bit. Like an evil character would change in a Black Dragon with little holes in its wings(like Illidan in Warcraft 3:TFT), and Paladin-like charactes maybe some sort of Golden Dragon with some sort of shining aura, or make it completly adjustable, like when you get the 'skill' to change into a dragon, be able to choose how it looks: its colour, its wings, its size, type of head, maybe with some attributes like strength, speed, intelligence. Strength would increase the damage, Speed would increase the dragons maximum Flying/Turning speed, Intelligence increasing manapool so the dragon can cast more magical attacks(maybe something like 'Firestorm' so that a whole area is set on fire, or 'Devour', picking up an enemy and slowly devour him while you regain health)
If the dragon would be a mount, i think it would be cool to first get some sort of egg that hatches, and after that it grows in physical size every time it levels up, and at a certain point it would be big enough to actually mount it so you can fly with it.
If there would be henchman/partymembers, how would they follow you if you mounted a flying creature/changed into a dragon? would they also have flying mounts/Dragon Form? Or does this mean there will be no party members?
And if you would be able to change into a dragon, it would also afect the 'map-system'. Like if you use these 'gates', how are you going to make the borders inpassable, as mountains or trees can no longer limit a flying creature, it just needs to fly higher to get over them.




I like both the ideas, I always enjoy having pets
But I guess it would be cooler to transform into the dragons ourselves.
Make us able to make baby dragons
maybe the flying over the mountain (or forrest) would be the area with little to no gameplay to stream out one level and stream in the next. We have been told we would get the feeling it would be one big seamless world. (or did I get it wrong ?)
But well pets haven't really come to the discussion, who would want to be able to have pets and who wouldn't ?
I would like them, but there are other things far more important to me than being able to have pets. (A fighting system I like for example, or the option to play peacefull, but since we are going to be dragons peacefull is out of the question)
But basicly pets are like party members. And I wouldn't want everyone to just being able to change into a dragon (so the party members/henchman shouldn't be able to do that) and I would leave them behind . because I don't want to have a party all the time.

Posted By: Lurker

Re: Wishlist - 17/12/06 03:03 PM

well yeah something comparable to knights with lances might work, but air to air it would be quite a distance to fall. So you can't ever lose and live to tell.

Some people in the real world have fallen from great heights without being killed, so falling in a fantasy world shouldn't result in automatic death, but in some serious damage, depending on the height. And there could be spells like Feather Fall to reduce or prevent falling damage.

Even if the player character can transform into a dragon, there could be opponents who ride flying steeds. DD had dragon riders, although they didn't really fly, so why shouldn't they appear in the next game, this time in the air?

So wich one do you prefer ? Unless we aren't the flying creature ourselves we really shouldn't be able to control it as well.

I'm not sure which method of controlling a flying steed I'd prefer, though if the player character simply transforms into a dragon, it doesn't matter. I guess if we get to mount a flying steed, I could like both ways – either fully controlling it or having the computer control it based on some settings.

I wouldn't want my enemys to live to tell about my fighting style.

Even great fighters can't always get what they want. Assume there are three enemies left when they decide to run. If they are clever enough to run in different directions, at least one might escape and live to tell about your fighting style, especially if you don't have ranged weapons. And there could always be some uninvolved on-lookers who can't keep their mouths shut. Would you kill them as well?

If the game uses a reputation stat again, people might recognize you once you become famous. In this case, I think it's reasonable to assume they would know a bit more about you than just how you look. And if some details about your fighting style became known, your enemies would be foolish not to react accordingly. Of course, there could also be a way to play the game without acquiring either fame or infamy.

About the fleeing that depends on the situation, because I can imagine that dieing from my hands would be better for them than dieing from their bosses hand.

Some might think that way, but if you have just killed 80% of an enemy group, the remaining ones could still try to run and escape both your wrath and that of their boss (starting a new life far, far away and all that). They might also surrender. As far as I can remember, no enemy ever surrendered or tried to run in DD. Adding this option would be a way to present enemies not just as targets to gain XP from, but as living beings who have their own goals and ambitions – particularly if you can talk to them after they've surrendered.

I also think you should get XP for defeating enemies, and those who flee or surrender count as defeated. Of course, you wouldn't get their equipment if they manage to flee, but you could ask or force those who have surrendered to hand over all or some of their possessions.

and being a dragon without some really cool skills would be kinda lame

Old dragons are usually depicted as being very powerful. It would be hard to find adequate challenges for them. I think the mere possibility of playing an old and powerful dragon involves a certain risk; it might either become boring (if fighting is just a matter of choosing which of your super-powerful skills you use this time) or it might feel "un-dragonish" (if a handful of standard archers are able to shoot a dragon from the sky). And if you just fight against whole armies or against one human Siegfried-style mega-champion after the other, it would be hard to write a background story that keeps up to those challenges.

If the player character really transforms into a dragon, it might be better to have him become a young and inexperienced one or even a hatchling, without any powerful skills. This dragon might still need to learn how to breathe fire and how to use those mighty attacks that make people fear older dragons. Its scales might still be soft, so standard archers would be a danger not to be ignored. I think this would provide more interesting challenges, at least if you are able to transform early in the game.

Speaking of picking things up as a dragon, it would be cool to be able to grab stuff (trees, boulders, cows...) to carry somewhere and drop on an opponent.

I like this idea. It would be a nice way to add some variety to a dragon's attacks.

If there would be henchman/partymembers, how would they follow you if you mounted a flying creature/changed into a dragon? would they also have flying mounts/Dragon Form? Or does this mean there will be no party members?

Older dragons should be strong enough to carry several human-sized beings. If just the player character is able to transform into a young dragon, it might be necessary to leave other party members behind and to pick them up once you change back into human form. But who knows – maybe you want to keep your dragon nature a secret anyway?

who would want to be able to have pets and who wouldn't ?

I'd prefer to have party members I can talk to, but if that's not possible, the option to have pets you can summon and/or train would be nice. It's not a must-have for me, though.

Posted By: lepel

Re: Wishlist - 17/12/06 04:51 PM

Quote:

About the fleeing that depends on the situation, because I can imagine that dieing from my hands would be better for them than dieing from their bosses hand.
Some might think that way, but if you have just killed 80% of an enemy group, the remaining ones could still try to run and escape both your wrath and that of their boss (starting a new life far, far away and all that). They might also surrender. As far as I can remember, no enemy ever surrendered or tried to run in DD. Adding this option would be a way to present enemies not just as targets to gain XP from, but as living beings who have their own goals and ambitions – particularly if you can talk to them after they've surrendered.

I also think you should get XP for defeating enemies, and those who flee or surrender count as defeated. Of course, you wouldn't get their equipment if they manage to flee, but you could ask or force those who have surrendered to hand over all or some of their possessions.



I like them surrendering better as fleeing.
Quote:

and being a dragon without some really cool skills would be kinda lame
Old dragons are usually depicted as being very powerful. It would be hard to find adequate challenges for them. I think the mere possibility of playing an old and powerful dragon involves a certain risk; it might either become boring (if fighting is just a matter of choosing which of your super-powerful skills you use this time) or it might feel "un-dragonish" (if a handful of standard archers are able to shoot a dragon from the sky). And if you just fight against whole armies or against one human Siegfried-style mega-champion after the other, it would be hard to write a background story that keeps up to those challenges.

If the player character really transforms into a dragon, it might be better to have him become a young and inexperienced one or even a hatchling, without any powerful skills. This dragon might still need to learn how to breathe fire and how to use those mighty attacks that make people fear older dragons. Its scales might still be soft, so standard archers would be a danger not to be ignored. I think this would provide more interesting challenges, at least if you are able to transform early in the game.


I could agree with this if at the end of the game we could still have fun fighting with the full grown dragon even if it is too strong. (Because whats the point playing an entire game getting stronger and stronger and by the time you have some nice skills you can't do anything with them). But anyway there could be enemys that are challenging for a full grown dragon too, maybe using magic or something.
Posted By: isorun

Re: Wishlist - 17/12/06 10:17 PM

Als antwoord op:

If the player character really transforms into a dragon, it might be better to have him become a young and inexperienced one or even a hatchling, without any powerful skills. This dragon might still need to learn how to breathe fire and how to use those mighty attacks that make people fear older dragons. Its scales might still be soft, so standard archers would be a danger not to be ignored. I think this would provide more interesting challenges, at least if you are able to transform early in the game.



That would be cool, like you get the form at a rather early point in the game, but it's still weak, your dragon form would only know about 2-5 skills and by gaining xp, your dragon form becomes stronger, being able to use more powerfull attacks.
And if it would be confirmed that we would be the dragon by one of the Larians, we could think of some skills! Like I remember this skill from LotR: Battle for Middle-Earth 2 that made a dragon flap it wings above a certain area, and everyone beneath it was trown away into the air and fell back on the ground, taking damage and being stunnend for a few seconds. that would be a really cool skill to use on archers and such, and especially usefull for young dragons(because their scales are still soft).
Ofcours if the dragon changes in appearence, will it only be it's size? or will it show signs of aging? but what is the point of creating a dragon with a certain color, certain wings,... if it becomes tottaly different after a few levels?
Posted By: Raze

Re: Wishlist - 17/12/06 10:25 PM

Lepel;
And what do you think about the option about the manual attack that with one click in the options menu is turned into an auto attack ? (as described in my previous post)

That would be fine if it can be done with a reasonable amount of effort and without effecting the game balance too much.

Contrary to your earlier comment, I think manual fighting might make things easier. If fights are decide based on the player's coordination and reflexes their character wouldn't need as much agility, for example, so could boost constitution more.


Do you think this might work or isn't that kind of auto-attack the kind you want.

In principle all that is required is a micromanaged fight system where you can choose to disable targeting and have the computer control aspects of your own character's fighting.

In practice, however, a micromanaged fight system implies a single character game with fewer, stronger opponents, alone or in small groups. A non-micromanaged fight system is more flexible and better allows for party members, pets, larger groups of opponents, etc. I think the choice of combat system will have a much broader impact than a box to check in the options.



Isorun;
If there would be henchman/partymembers, how would they follow you if you mounted a flying creature/changed into a dragon? would they also have flying mounts/Dragon Form? Or does this mean there will be no party members?

Reasonably I think a single dragon is more likely. If there is a party they may transform with you, you they may get left behind. If there is a single character with summoning dolls, the dolls may be necessary to the transformation, assuming it is due to some external power or artifact.


And if you would be able to change into a dragon, it would also afect the 'map-system'. Like if you use these 'gates', how are you going to make the borders inpassable, as mountains or trees can no longer limit a flying creature, it just needs to fly higher to get over them.

There can be mountains higher than a creature can fly; even with magical assistance dragons have wings, so must requires some level of air pressure to be able to fly. Some locations could be underground or underwater, preventing a dragon from entering. Some regions could have a magical barrier or a weapon effective against dragons, forcing you to enter as a human and do some sabotage before being able to enter as a dragon.

You may be transforming into a dragon only in some kind of spirit world or alternate realm, which may or may not be connected with Rivellon. In this case, if there is a one to one correspondence between the two places, perhaps areas in the dragon world that match places in the human world which you have not explored yet could be covered in a dense, impenetrable fog.

A separate (but connected) dragon and human world would make game balancing easier, though would make for less of a seamless world and could make the dragon aspect seem 'tacked on', depending on how it is implemented and integrated into the story. If everything takes place in Rivellon there would need to be limits on when you could transform or where you could go as a dragon. Perhaps you would only be able to transform for a limited amount of time at first, and that would increase as you leveled.
Posted By: lepel

Re: Wishlist - 18/12/06 12:51 AM

Quote:

Lepel;
And what do you think about the option about the manual attack that with one click in the options menu is turned into an auto attack ? (as described in my previous post)

That would be fine if it can be done with a reasonable amount of effort and without effecting the game balance too much.

Contrary to your earlier comment, I think manual fighting might make things easier. If fights are decide based on the player's coordination and reflexes their character wouldn't need as much agility, for example, so could boost constitution more.


that might be a problem, but that could be fixed, attach agiltiy to some sort of delay times between attacks, or recovery time from attack to the next attack. Or make the agility need of weapons kinda high so that players that want an agile knight and the weapons that come with it, should boost agility anyway.

Quote:


Do you think this might work or isn't that kind of auto-attack the kind you want.

In principle all that is required is a micromanaged fight system where you can choose to disable targeting and have the computer control aspects of your own character's fighting.

In practice, however, a micromanaged fight system implies a single character game with fewer, stronger opponents, alone or in small groups. A non-micromanaged fight system is more flexible and better allows for party members, pets, larger groups of opponents, etc. I think the choice of combat system will have a much broader impact than a box to check in the options.



Well I don't really agree with that. Because in Gothic 3 and in Guildwars there are both big groups of enemys as well as small groups. And since I want a combination of both fighting systems I can't see why there suddenly should be less enemys. Maybe guildwars makes a party work since they don't really use potions but you depend on your own magic/skills or on your teams magic/skills. But the Gothic 3 "party" system sucks. Or maybe it was just the poor AI.

I don't know why this thought suddenly popped into my head, but if you let NPC's talk (with eachother) please don't make their conversations so weird and annoying. In oblivion and gothic 3 I often felt like killing those NPCs just so they would shut up.

Oh and btw Lar if/when you read this, could you give us a hint about something so we would have more to discuss about. Because I think that unless new people (with a different opinion)get involved in the discussion there is not much left to say about the fighting system. (So either in what direction you are planning to go with the fighting or just a different subject).
Posted By: Lar_q

Re: Wishlist - 18/12/06 01:49 PM

>>Oh and btw Lar if/when you read this, could you give us a hint about something so we would have more to discuss about.<<

I'm a bit limited right now about what I can talk about - I did see several things pop up which are designed already the way you described, so it means we're in sych with what you guys expect, which is cool. I hope that we'll be able to make some noise real soon - there's really quite a lot of cool stuff to show already.

But please start another thread when you address a new subject - it's quite hard to follow for us (and especially, to find things back later on)

Just to give you some background on where we are - the design is basically finished but we now going through it again, improving where possible, raising issues where necessary (such as for instance the seamless world thing). One issue which did pop up recently is - cool monsters. To give you an example : Don't say "big demon" when you can say "demon which is composed of living organs of its victims, surrounded by all kinds of spiritually bound minions which it eats whenever its feeling weak and which is 10 times larger than the player". All suggestions more than welcome

Lar

P.S.


Posted By: isorun

Re: Wishlist - 18/12/06 03:12 PM

Mythological creatures: Cyclops, Centaurs (I just love centaurs, fast AND smart), how are those creatures with the snakes as hair called again? Gorgons or something like that?
Hell Hounds, Infernos,... ofcours these creatures aren't really original, but in my opinion they are cool.
Harpies(in really large groups) and other dragons would be great opponents for the dragon.
Really LARGE creatures like in 'Shadow of the Colossus'(Great game), wich need to be beaten with tricks, like dropping heavy things on them to break their armor.

Posted By: AlrikFassbauer

Re: Wishlist - 18/12/06 05:22 PM

I think a new thread with suggestions on monsters would be good.

So Lar & Co. won't have to browse through all of this thread again.


Posted By: Smicallion

Re: Wishlist - 21/12/06 10:41 PM

I signed up here just to make one little wish, not sure if it's been mentioned yet.

Please use Kirill Pokrovsky to soundtrack your next game again. He makes such beautiful and atmospheric music which is so much more important then people ever really acknowledge.
Posted By: Raze

Re: Wishlist - 21/12/06 10:48 PM

Larian has confirmed that he will be doing the music for the next game. (DD music)


Welcome to the forum.
Posted By: Smicallion

Re: Wishlist - 21/12/06 10:59 PM

Thanks for the welcome

That's great news then. Kirill has a great mind for music, and his sound is very unique. Really, if it wasn't for his music wouldn't have been nearly as captivating.
Posted By: TheDivine

Re: Wishlist - 22/12/06 12:41 PM

Als antwoord op:

Thanks for the welcome

That's great news then. Kirill has a great mind for music, and his sound is very unique. Really, if it wasn't for his music wouldn't have been nearly as captivating.




agreed

welcome
Posted By: Ghostboy

Re: Wishlist - 24/12/06 03:23 PM

Is it not possible to implement the possibility to poison food, and I don't mean the scripted ones like in other games, but that you can do it everywhere and always. So they go dead or just fall asleep.

Posted By: sh0k3r

Re: Wishlist - 25/12/06 01:10 PM

i would like the creatures from divine divinity...and something in + ....and also a very good story...with good quests
Posted By: isorun

Re: Wishlist - 29/12/06 11:50 AM

And a good Questlog. I liked the Oblivion Questlog system, you can watch al entries at any time of each quest, but the markers made it to easy(not always ofcours). Still, the questlog was great. While in Divine Divinity you had only one entry for each quest, so you weren't able to see which information you had gathered about that quest.
Posted By: TheDivine

Re: Wishlist - 29/12/06 09:41 PM

Als antwoord op:

And a good Questlog. I liked the Oblivion Questlog system, you can watch al entries at any time of each quest, but the markers made it to easy(not always ofcours). Still, the questlog was great. While in Divine Divinity you had only one entry for each quest, so you weren't able to see which information you had gathered about that quest.




ye i agree. remove (or make them optional) the markers. For the rest Oblivion has a good system there
Posted By: Lan_Mandragoran

Re: Wishlist - 16/01/07 05:16 AM

Quote:

Mythological creatures: Cyclops, Centaurs (I just love centaurs, fast AND smart), how are those creatures with the snakes as hair called again? Gorgons or something like that?
Hell Hounds, Infernos,... ofcours these creatures aren't really original, but in my opinion they are cool.
Harpies(in really large groups) and other dragons would be great opponents for the dragon.
Really LARGE creatures like in 'Shadow of the Colossus'(Great game), wich need to be beaten with tricks, like dropping heavy things on them to break their armor.





I really like the idea of mythological creatures in the game . Another kool thing would be to put Gods in the game too. Like in Greek mythology, a God appears to the player (whether in disguise or in actual form) and talks to him, drops him hints about things, constantly helps, or hurts the player, trys to trick the him to his death.

Another thing that Id really love to see is providing the player with ways to beat the creatures/beasts in the game by other means other than fighting. Like being able to dig deep holes and covering them up as traps or something. Or making a creature invulnerable to everything except to only one certain way in which it can be killed(which the player has to figure out).

Ohh and guys for heavens sake, put some of our old acquaintances from into D2, besides Zandalor and the furry little cat. Like the two funny Orcs in the Wastelands and Kroxy.
Posted By: Ghostboy

Re: Wishlist - 17/01/07 01:37 PM

Will there be islands and the possibility to discover them by boat and not just be teleported on it like in morrowind???
Posted By: Ghostboy

Re: Wishlist - 21/01/07 09:47 PM

Is this any competition for Divine Divinity 2??? :

http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/12597/Two-Worlds-Coming-This-Spring-New-Screens/

Developed by Las Vegas-based TopWare Interactive and Reality Pump Studios, Two Worlds is an evolution of the role-playing genre. Combining unlimited character development and fierce, spectacular combat, Two Worlds brings a new kind of gameplay experience where players are encouraged to experiment with the world, test the results of good and evil deeds and find the most satisfying way to face challenges. Never before has an RPG given gamers such an unprecedented level of freedom to change the world and shape the story within it – for the first time, choices made in an RPG game are actually meaningful.

“Two Worlds is quickly shaping up to be an experience that sets the benchmark of what a role-playing experience can be,” said Katie Morgan, Executive Vice President of SouthPeak Interactive. “We couldn’t be more excited to be bringing this gargantuan title to both Windows and Xbox 360 gamers.”




Posted By: Elliot_Kane

Re: Wishlist - 21/01/07 11:24 PM

Quote:

Is this any competition for Divine Divinity 2??? :

http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/12597/Two-Worlds-Coming-This-Spring-New-Screens/

Developed by Las Vegas-based TopWare Interactive and Reality Pump Studios, Two Worlds is an evolution of the role-playing genre. Combining unlimited character development and fierce, spectacular combat, Two Worlds brings a new kind of gameplay experience where players are encouraged to experiment with the world, test the results of good and evil deeds and find the most satisfying way to face challenges. Never before has an RPG given gamers such an unprecedented level of freedom to change the world and shape the story within it – for the first time, choices made in an RPG game are actually meaningful.

“Two Worlds is quickly shaping up to be an experience that sets the benchmark of what a role-playing experience can be,” said Katie Morgan, Executive Vice President of SouthPeak Interactive. “We couldn’t be more excited to be bringing this gargantuan title to both Windows and Xbox 360 gamers.”





If it can deliver on the hype it'll be a great game. Whether it will or not is something else, of course...
Posted By: janggut

Re: Wishlist - 22/01/07 01:42 AM

sounds like a glorified hack & slash.
Posted By: Ghostboy

Re: Wishlist - 27/01/07 03:08 PM

I hope that, because you gonna make the game 3D, that it makes a difference where you hit an enemy. (ex. That if you shoot an enemy with a bow in the leg, it has less impact on his hit points than if you hit him in the head). It would also be nice when he's hit in the leg, he will walk slower and if he's hit in his arm or hand, he will not do so many damage with his weapon or even drops his weapon.

Dismemberment would also be great, but I don't know of the engine is capable of doing so.

These are maybe minor details for a RPG, but for me they give more fun to the game.
Posted By: Hurri

Re: Wishlist - 28/01/07 05:57 PM

On top of my wishlist right now is a brand new screenshot, more then 1 is always better ofcourse
Posted By: LASTTEMPLAR

Re: Wishlist - 11/02/07 06:56 PM

what game is PS:T ,sounds like a game I would want to play till DD2 comes out?
Posted By: Ubereil

Re: Wishlist - 11/02/07 07:21 PM

Ps:T stands for Planescape:Torment, and according to some members here (includeing me) it's the finest cRPG ever made. A bit hard to find nowadays though.

Übereil
Posted By: Elliot_Kane

Re: Wishlist - 12/02/07 06:01 AM

Quote:

Ps:T stands for Planescape:Torment, and according to some members here (includeing me) it's the finest cRPG ever made. A bit hard to find nowadays though.

Übereil




Seconded. Nothing beats PS:T
Posted By: killerzzz

Re: Wishlist - 12/02/07 07:08 AM

So that's where you got that skull avatar, Ube.
I've always wondered...

Also, that Planescape looks like a cool game. I shall scan the discontinued game bins for it.

Killerzzz
Posted By: isorun

Re: Wishlist - 12/02/07 06:30 PM

You can still download it as a torrent(illegal ofcours)
Played it when I was little, didn't understand a thing of it, looked cool tough, with the flying skull, but it was to big for me. Maybe I will give it another shot if i come across it again.

To go back on Topic:
Necromancy!!! The ability to animate undead and reanimate the enemies you've beaten, I love it! A starting necromancer may be able to bring a rat back to life, while a master could have an army of minions following him.

Should you implent telekenesis in the game, please make it so that you can use it as a weapon, like using a mug to knock someone on the head which stuns him for a few seconds. Or taking the enemies dagger and stabbing him with it, whitout even being anywhere near him, just at a spot where you can see him. Someone who is very skilled in Telekenesis may be able to control multiple weapons with his mind, or using plates and different kind of items as shields to protect him.
Posted By: AlrikFassbauer

Re: Wishlist - 12/02/07 08:16 PM

PS:T was recently on a German magazine's DVD. So now I've got a one-disc version.

Posted By: Hurri

Re: Wishlist - 13/02/07 10:48 AM

Some modding-tools would be great so we can keep the game alive for many many years. (probably mentioned before)
Posted By: Ghostboy

Re: Wishlist - 22/02/07 11:18 PM

This is something I found on a forum for "Lord of the Rings Online" but I like the ideas so I put it here :


Als antwoord op:

I would like a lot to see realistic environment in this game. Reality that environment affecting the characters would bring realism into game and maybe people would respect environment more and makes you feel more connected to world. Characters would have to eat time to time or their health or morale starts to go down, you cannot go into icy area without dressing properly or dive into freezing water without consequences. Fog would example drain your morale a bit because you are not able to see are enemies near or not. Realistic environment would bring new strategic aspect to game: it’d be different to attack at night than day, fog lowers the field of view so enemies cannot see you as easily and you don’t see them... I would also like to see that we could use environment for our beneficial, attacking someone from top of cliff or building would prevent enemy attacking you without ranged weapon or magic or finding realistic way to reach you. I dont like that many MMOs you cannot do any of this and npc’s even walk up vertical wall or fly in the air to get you if I try to take advance of environment, that takes out all reality of the game. At this point the game looks great and so on but it’s too much like other games (MMOGs) out there and I would like to see that LoTRo makes difference in this matter by creating more realistic environment so the game would be much deeper and alive, not just decoration where you are running here and there. These are just some examples which would be nice to see in game. I'm not saying that without these the game is bad.





PS. Lar, is it possible for you to tell us which of the ideas you've seen here on the forum you like and that have a possibility to appear in the final game??? Maybe it's also time for a new update?
Posted By: AlrikFassbauer

Re: Wishlist - 23/02/07 01:02 PM

[ZItat]Characters would have to eat time to time or their health or morale starts to go down




The game "Cultures" implements a similar thing, I think.


Posted By: Morbo

Re: Wishlist - 23/02/07 05:30 PM

GTA SA has a similar thing where if a player eats to much he gets fat(loose speed en strength) and if he doesn't eat he is weak and slim.
Posted By: Tutamun

Re: Wishlist - 23/02/07 05:51 PM

That is too realistic for me.
Posted By: Raze

Re: Wishlist - 23/02/07 08:43 PM

Me too. Realism is great as long as it doesn't interfere with gameplay. IMNSHO, micromanagement should be reserved for games where that is the whole point, or for shallow games that need some kind of filler or distraction to keep people busy.
Posted By: AlrikFassbauer

Re: Wishlist - 23/02/07 09:36 PM

The Realms of Arcania Trilogy had a *lot* of micromanagement - some that is even unwanted by the makers of the newest Dark Eye RPG : Drakensang.

Posted By: Elliot_Kane

Re: Wishlist - 24/02/07 12:06 PM

Quote:

Me too. Realism is great as long as it doesn't interfere with gameplay. IMNSHO, micromanagement should be reserved for games where that is the whole point, or for shallow games that need some kind of filler or distraction to keep people busy.




I agree.
Posted By: Morbo

Re: Wishlist - 28/02/07 02:28 PM

A village under the sea would be nice. It could be full of sea men or women. Or to explore the mountains where the council of 7 chamber is.
Posted By: AlrikFassbauer

Re: Wishlist - 02/03/07 12:08 PM

I would call a henchman simply "Hench".

I mean, as a first name.

(And what about "henchwomen" ? )

Posted By: Ech_Heftag

Re: Wishlist - 19/03/07 12:56 PM

Hello... I've just registered here after reading through most of this thread ;D

Here a few suggestions to the air-fighting-system:

Perhaps the best solution is a quasi-turn-based system.

For example: You're flying. Then an enemy comes into range. Now the game auto-pauses and you can choose between different options, how to deal with the enemy:

Option a) Take a rock and throw it on the enemy!
Option b) Start a melee attack with the dragons claws and your lance!
Option c) Start a ranged attack with the dragons breath!
Option d) The enemy is too mighty. I will stay in the air and use my arrows against him!
Option e) Retreat!

Of course, you must have the things required for the options. So, if you have no bow in your inventory, option d) will not occur.
And if you need to change your fight commands, you can hit the pause-key again... and so on.

After you select an option, the game will resume and you will try to beat the enemy.

This will make air-fighting a lot more easier and you don't have to use 15 keys with 10 fingers simultaneosly

Uhhh... sorry for my bad English btw



Posted By: Ubereil

Re: Wishlist - 19/03/07 02:12 PM

Wellcome to the forum! And don't worry about your english, I had no problems reading what you wrote (and as far as I saw, it didn't have any gramatical/spellingerrore either) .

Übereil
Posted By: Jurak

Re: Wishlist - 19/03/07 04:03 PM

Quote:

I would call a henchman simply "Hench".

I mean, as a first name.

(And what about "henchwomen" ? )








henchmaid...
Posted By: AlrikFassbauer

Re: Wishlist - 19/03/07 05:14 PM

In Antwort auf:

In Antwort auf:

I would call a henchman simply "Hench".

I mean, as a first name.

(And what about "henchwomen" ? )








henchmaid...




Henchbutler ?

Posted By: Elliot_Kane

Re: Wishlist - 20/03/07 10:11 PM

Ech_Heftag...

Welcome to the forum
Posted By: AlrikFassbauer

Re: Wishlist - 30/03/07 03:10 PM

I had an idea for an "moral dilemma" :

Crops vs. rabbits.

Someone could approach the char with the question to save local rabbits from extinction.

However, this would also lead to a certain consuming of crops by them.

So, the thing is in the end that the people can eat mainly vegetable food based on the crops OR meat food based ton the multiplying rabbits ...

(Should remind you of the last Wallace & Gromit movie as well. )

A possible third solution to this could be the introduce of an predator, like Wolves, for example. They would keep the number of rabbits low.

But people fear Wolves ...


Posted By: Wallace

Re: Wishlist - 08/04/07 05:27 PM

My 2 cents:

1. I should be able to see where the sky meets the earth... in the game. I want the game to be very beautiful looking. Don't ever make the game dark and dull looking. I don't care if Larian goes for DirectX 10 this time.

2. As requested earlier... SDK please. Can't imagine what kind of stuff Raze et all will do with it.

3. Consider making it turn based... (my friend already said it). Ever played Avernum 3 or Heros of Might and Magic... or Civilization.. Turn based ain't so bad if you know how to go about it. But it may be a bad idea in 3rd person 3D game view.

4. Armor set: Please include some really exciting quest to find some armor sets. Also put in some quests for finding mythological weapons of great power... spear of Achillies or something.

5. Extreme leveling: Character should be able to level up like anything... plus they should be really professionals in whatever they do. for e.g. Hunter should be able to snipe a huge monster without even being seen... in one shot, and a mage should be able to cast a meteor-shower to level a mountain etc...(OK this one got to far )

6. Music: As far as music is concerned.. try using violin and drums. They are heart rendering.. often.

I read quite a few lists before putting mine here. Hope this helps

Thanks and Regards
Wallace

EDIT: PS
7. Party: If Larian goes for Partying with NPC like stuff... please make sure that are level-uppable and controllable too. Also if they decide to make of them as main characters lover etc... make sure that the experiance (dialogue and interaction stuff) is orgasmic
Posted By: Vervekke

Re: Wishlist - 08/05/07 06:15 PM

Hey guys

I,m thinking about building your own weapons. Let me give an example. Take as example a sword. Brake this sword in three parts. First you got the handle, the protection part between the handle and the blad and then the blade itself.

Every part has he's ability. (example Handle = agility +5, 2nd part = armor + 7 and blad = strength + 12).

There are diffrent types of abilty

strength = attack power
Agilty = Attack speed
stamina = increase health
armor = defend power
intellect = magic attack power
spirit = increase mana

Know give the player the chance to construct there own unique swords. If a player wants to create a fully strength weapon or an defend weapon. He or she can choose for themself.

Regards

Joris


Posted By: Raze

Re: Wishlist - 08/05/07 11:24 PM

In the game Evil Islands, equipment and spells could be custom made, similar to your suggestion. For equipment you need a blueprint and material (some of which you collect from defeated opponents), and you can deconstruct existing non-unique items and reform them with different spells or better material. Spells start with the basic magic type, and you can add runes to increase the effect / duration / range or decrease the mana requirements. Each rune has a certain complexity that adds to the base spell value, and the characters' stats/skills determine how complex a spell they can use, while the type of equipment and material used determines what spells can be placed in equipment.


Welcome to the forum.
Posted By: AlrikFassbauer

Re: Wishlist - 09/05/07 10:51 AM

I have heard of a similar thing in the game "Kult".

Posted By: Elliot_Kane

Re: Wishlist - 09/05/07 01:01 PM

Kult: Heretic Kingdoms? Not really... Seal Of Evil does, though.

K:HK is about attuning your equipment, and a very good & unique system it is, too

SoE has an item construction system based on the traditional Chinese elements (Earth, Fire, Wood, Metal & Water). The better diagram you have and the more experienced you are with it, the better the items you can make. Assuming you have the right bits, of course

Welcome to the forum, Vervekke
Posted By: AlrikFassbauer

Re: Wishlist - 09/05/07 03:29 PM

I have never heard of "Seal of Evil".

Posted By: Elliot_Kane

Re: Wishlist - 09/05/07 04:18 PM

Alrik - it was never really a popular game, and is probably quite hard to find, now. It's basically a party-based Diablo clone, and towards the end gets very same-ish and rather tedious as a result, but it's not without its charm.
Posted By: mmiskov

Re: Wishlist - 09/05/07 04:23 PM

Hi guys new here

I saw some great posts & ideas and i agree with all of them.... but i dont recall seeing a post where it was suggested adding pets to the game (fighting pets :P). Also, pls lar guys dont make DD 2 with so many stats like in . I think that the combination of stats made in was absolutely perfect ( no initiative, speed, luck and all those resistances bone, water, shadow etc). is my fav game and id really like to see the sequel similar to it.

PS: I did thou like the crystal bag in and i think that some unique features like that and the TP stones should be added in DD2 . Sry bout my english.....
Posted By: Elliot_Kane

Re: Wishlist - 09/05/07 06:38 PM

Welcome, mmiskov
Posted By: Point

Re: Wishlist - 04/07/07 06:44 AM

Hello everyone! I would like to make a wish too.

Namely that the game would not include earth, air and water resistances. I am not opposed to groups of spells carrying those names, but I would much prefer it if tornadoes, earthquakes and tidal waves all dealt types of physical damage. I think that having "water based" as a spell quality is a nice feature, but unless I am roleplaying a fire elemental, sludge monster or soap golem, that quality shouldn't affect me. Requiring protection against a shaman's raindance just seems queer to me.

Oh, and if there will be flying with keys for acceleration and tilting in four directions then since we are to be using wings I would also like having an airbrake key for when you don't want to crash into something (like the ground).
Posted By: Macbeth

Re: Wishlist - 04/07/07 08:25 AM

Welcome to the forum!
Posted By: Raze

Re: Wishlist - 04/07/07 10:24 AM

that quality shouldn't affect me

Those damage types do affect various opponents differently, though, so it makes sense to have a resistance value to describe the relative vulnerability to each elemental attack (it has to be there in some form, though it could be partly hidden for your character). In principle you could have these spells doing physical damage, but with a damage bonus (or penalty) based on the type of opponent. Either way you would effectively have the same situation, but using resistances is easier than adding an additional combat subsystem for certain types of spells.

Also, though this is more of a conceptual problem, elemental damage may not exactly correspond to physical damage for all types of armour. Full plate offers better protection than leather for crushing, slashing and piercing damage, but if a water spell floods an area deeper than the character's height, or turns the ground to mud, I'd much rather be wearing the leather. A silk robe would be much better protection against a cold wind than a cotton robe, but they may offer similar protection against physical damage types. It is unlikely the combat system will get this intricate, though, since these are relatively minor influences, for the most part.

Earth spells could just do crushing damage; pretty much anything resistant or vulnerable to a rock will be affected similarly by any blunt weapon. However, a water based creature may be much more affected by sand or dirt than other creatures with similar physical resistances. If earth damage were to be eliminated (without adding damage modifiers based on the opponent), there would need to be restrictions on the types of earth spells available or on the creatures in the game, so that damage to all opponents was reasonable and made sense.


Requiring protection against a shaman's raindance just seems queer to me.

Not if the water is ice cold, or it is acid rain.
Posted By: Elliot_Kane

Re: Wishlist - 04/07/07 11:17 AM

Welcome, Point
Posted By: AlrikFassbauer

Re: Wishlist - 04/07/07 11:39 AM

In Antwort auf:

soap golem




Interesting ... The high prestige item for any mage or aristocrat ...

"My soap golem always prepares my bath for me".

Brothels could gain positive effects from them as well ...

Posted By: Point

Re: Wishlist - 07/07/07 09:55 PM

Quote:


Those damage types do affect various opponents differently, though, so it makes sense to have a resistance value to describe the relative vulnerability to each elemental attack (it has to be there in some form, though it could be partly hidden for your character). In principle you could have these spells doing physical damage, but with a damage bonus (or penalty) based on the type of opponent. Either way you would effectively have the same situation, but using resistances is easier than adding an additional combat subsystem for certain types of spells.





Agreed. In that case using resistances for the job would make humans have an extremely high resistance against both water and earth, uhm, damage; since being in contact with either of the substances is by itself not harmful for us. Partly hiding these stats for humans would make sense to me. It occurs to me, though, that even such a sistem would not be well suited to describe how boiling water will cause burns on a human, but deal cold damage to a fire elemental. Introducing a partly hidden temperature stat for each water based spell would be taking the whole issue too far... In the end I would just like the resistance system to make sense like in . I haven't played , so I don't actually know how the elemental issues are handeled there, but I have yet to see a game which includes "elemental" resistances and makes them work in the way described by Raze. Where they have a water resistance stat it is plain normal for humans to take water damage from certain spells. If the rain spell is actually supposed to be acid rain or nitrogen rain, then IMNHO the game should include acid and cold resistances instead.

As for the additional combat subsystem- let me make a separate wish from that. I would like to see a magic system in which it is not overly simple to judge the true value of a spell. Some properties could be kept hidden and would only be revealed to the player if the character learns enough about the magic type or particular spell in question. If fatigue causes –3 to agility and web causes –3 to both agility and dexterity then the web spell is a simply superior in terms of effect. If a spell system is easy to dissect and understand in under half an hour that degrades fatigue from a potentially useful power at your disposal to a simple –3 agi debuff as you know exactly what you can expect from the spell in this battle system. Yet if it you were to find out that it is possible to counter web with a wind attack; tearing it or even blowing it into someone else, then you would suddenly all see spells in a different light; it could reduce prejudice towards spells based on numbers and encourage experimentation. While the "web" example would be hard to code, it may be easier to add some different "special" properties to various basic spells (which might then later be custumizeable in certain ways like in ). Adding "sound based" to a mind-controlling song could make it susceptible to some wind spells, etc. The risks in setting up such a system, though, are to miss something gamebreaking and more oppurtunities for bugs. A "deep" spell system would really be a nice feature, as long as it doesn't make a mess of the game.

Posted By: Raze

Re: Wishlist - 08/07/07 06:42 AM

being in contact with either of the substances is by itself not harmful for us.

That depends on the contact. Most humans have a relatively low resistance against water if it is completely covering their nose and mouth. Water focused through a small area under high pressure can cut through rock. Larger volumes of water can stun or knock you over (ie firehose used on rioters) and if fast enough can break bones, etc (ie someone falling off a high bridge). A bucket of water dumped on your head isn't going to do much, but if you were hit with the same amount of water fired by an air cannon, it could be fatal (you'd definitely feel it, anyway). Also, since the human body is more than half water, anything that can manipulate water directly (move, stop, heat, cool, etc) has the potential to do a lot of damage.

Most water spells are not going to have tsunami-like volumes of water, but even just switching to cold water greatly increases the damage capacity, since it can rapidly drop body temperature, tax endurance and make it much harder to defend against whatever else the water is doing, or whatever other attacks are being directed towards you. Fall overboard from a ship in the arctic circle and (without special survival gear on) your life expectancy is measured in minutes. The same fall into waters near the equator and you have a great way to cool off and a short distraction from swabbing the decks. You could convert water spells to conventional damage and then possibly a cold damage bonus or a slow or stamina drain effect, but this would restrict the type of water spells you could have.

Freezing the water adds more possibilities for damage, since different shapes and consistencies of ice could do crushing, piercing or slashing damage. Except for cold damage or effects, most ice spells would be easier to convert to a non-resistance form than water spells.
Even with water spells, that wouldn't have to be the direct cause of damage; water (in the form of a ball, fog, pool, etc) could be used to support a summoned water creature that could attack (possibly doing poison or conventional damage, etc).


Earth magic could range from earthquakes to ripping boulders out of the ground (and hurling them at opponents) to blinding sandstorms, so it isn't hard to see how it could do damage. There is less earth in the human body than water, though, so there is less potential for damage inherently due to earth or from magic that can manipulate earth. You could consider any solid tissues in the body (or at least bones) to be associated with earth, though, and therefore at least somewhat vulnerable to earth magic directly.


even such a sistem would not be well suited to describe how boiling water will cause burns on a human, but deal cold damage to a fire elemental.

Thermodynamics explains this quit well, though.

In one of Aesop's fables a Satyr invites a lost man to spend the night in his cave. After entering, the man blows on his hands to warm them up. At dinner, the man blows on his soup to cool it off. After hearing both explanations, the Satyr kicks the man out of the cave, saying he wants nothing to do with a creature that can blow hot and cold with the same breath.



Where they have a water resistance stat it is plain normal for humans to take water damage from certain spells.

Either you call the damage done by water based spells water damage, or you use the closest single or combination of conventional damage types, and add extra modifiers to these spells for opponents that are inherently either vulnerable or resistant to water. However, elemental damage is still not going to match up perfectly with conventional damage, so getting rid of water resistance for humans is going to cause other inconsistencies or restrict water based spells.

A spell that causes ice crystals to form in your blood is going to do a lot of piercing damage, but no conventional armour is going to make a difference, regardless of how well it protects against spears and arrows. However, magic does exist in the game, so you can have some magical control over the water in your body, or (more realistically) some way to counter the spell effect surrounding you. A resistance to water magic may be an aura surrounding you which interferes with an opponent's water magic, reducing the force of the spell or its precision.


You seem to have a problem with water, earth and air damage because real humans are not inherently vulnerable to these elements. However, Rivelon is a land of magic, where humans can learn to control the elements. With control comes the ability to at least partly counter spells based on these elements, either inherently or using an enchanted object (charms, crystals, or armour bonuses). Short of some twitch based combat system where you have to actively cast a counter spell, an elemental resistance for humans seams reasonable to me. The damage done by an element may or may not be directly due to the element itself, but the defense against such a spell could inherently depend on the nature of the element.


Of course both the spell and resistance descriptions in the game needed to be worded properly. If resistances are explained in a way consistent with the game world they will seem natural. On the other hand, just having spells that do a certain type of damage and a corresponding resistance could seem artificial.


A "deep" spell system would really be a nice feature, as long as it doesn't make a mess of the game.

Agreed.
Posted By: MeaCulpa

Re: Wishlist - 08/07/07 04:51 PM

LOL well I think you have just been (very Diplomatically) told
Good one Raze
Posted By: Raze

Re: Wishlist - 09/07/07 07:25 AM

Good one Raze
Ya, that turned out well considering I only thought of half of it as I was typing.


While I don't have a problem with elemental resistances, I also don't particularly care if they are included in the next gen game or not. If they are, they could be described and explained a little better than in BD (where some of the skills' designs seemed a little artificial).
Posted By: HandEFood

Re: Wishlist - 10/07/07 12:37 AM

Quote:

being in contact with either of the substances is by itself not harmful for us.

That depends on the contact. Most humans have a relatively low resistance against water if it is completely covering their nose and mouth. Water focused through a small area under high pressure can cut through rock. Larger volumes of water can stun or knock you over (ie firehose used on rioters) and if fast enough can break bones, etc (ie someone falling off a high bridge). A bucket of water dumped on your head isn't going to do much, but if you were hit with the same amount of water fired by an air cannon, it could be fatal (you'd definitely feel it, anyway). Also, since the human body is more than half water, anything that can manipulate water directly (move, stop, heat, cool, etc) has the potential to do a lot of damage.



Most of what you're talking about there isn't water damage. Water entering the body is drowning damage, perhaps the closest thing humans have to water damage. Water cutting a rock is pressure or tearing damage. Being hit with a water cannon is impact damage. Falling into water is also impact damage, only less so than hitting solid ground. Water, while not solid, is still substansially more dense than air, hence it's like being hit with a relatively soft, but very large club.

Quote:

You could convert water spells to conventional damage and then possibly a cold damage bonus or a slow or stamina drain effect, but this would restrict the type of water spells you could have.



That makes more sense. Combined with other ideas, water is no longer a damage type, but a set of spells that can cause a range of damage types: impact/bludgeoning (water cannon), peircing (ice splinters), cold (ice), heat (steam), acid (acid rain), slowing (drench)... Spells for creating and clearing fog extend the magic beyond simple combat. Water magic become highly versatile instead of only "does water damage."

Quote:

Earth magic could range from earthquakes to ripping boulders out of the ground (and hurling them at opponents) to blinding sandstorms, so it isn't hard to see how it could do damage. There is less earth in the human body than water, though, so there is less potential for damage inherently due to earth or from magic that can manipulate earth.



Again, forget the cause and look at the impact. Hit by a rock: impact/bludgeoning damage. Stuck in a sandstorm: low visibility, choking, slashing damage from razor cuts.

Quote:

You seem to have a problem with water, earth and air damage because real humans are not inherently vulnerable to these elements. However, Rivelon is a land of magic, where humans can learn to control the elements. With control comes the ability to at least partly counter spells based on these elements, either inherently or using an enchanted object (charms, crystals, or armour bonuses).



That works. Having resistance to a class of spells reduces their effective level. Take Impact Damage Resistance to protect yourself against a range of damage sources, some earth magic, some water magic, some weapons; or take Water Magic Resistance to reduce the effect of all water magic used against you or in your proximity, but not earth magic or weapons. My biggest gripe with Beyond Divinity is the multitude of meaningless elements. Eight or ten damage types and only Poison Damage has any significant difference to them all. The resistance skills seem next to useless. By overlapping the resistances each doesn't feel quite so useless anymore and it adds strategy in selecting your spells.

Posted By: Hurri

Re: Wishlist - 12/07/07 03:29 PM

add a wand and spells where you yell words like "Accio, Aguamenti, Alohomora, Avada Kedavra, Crucio, ..."
Posted By: AlrikFassbauer

Re: Wishlist - 12/07/07 08:01 PM

You forgot the "Blubb" at the end.

Posted By: isorun

Re: Wishlist - 19/07/07 11:50 AM

That Spell system sounds pretty cool to me. If the Larians would actually be able to implent this kind of system, it would be awesome.

One thing that I liked to do in Divine Divinity was creating armies of summoned creatures, the only downside was that I could have only 5 creatures follow me. So when I entered a cave, I started summoning a few skeletons, used the skeletal wall skill, summoned the death knight and so on. I'd like to see that in the next gen game to, but so that summoned creatures automaticly follow you, or you could have some sort of control over them, forcing them to go to a specific location, looking through the summoned creature's eyes, that kind of stuff.
I also like necromancer who use the body's of the fallen enemies and allies to create a whole armie of undead minions. Imagine a necromancer walking through a forest, he has no minions at the moment, yet suddenly he gets attacked by a wild boar, he's abble to kill the boar and starts a ritual, creating 3 lower level minions. These minions have low attack power, low constition and are used to distract enemies. So the necromancer continues to walk through the forest, suddenly he notices a group of orcs. He commands his minions to attack one of them, while he prepares himself to cast a powerfull hex upon that orc. all the orcs focuse their attention uppon those minions, while the necromancer continues to cast deadly spells, draining life from his enemies and giving him more power. One of the orcs is defeated and drops to the floor, death. The necromancer starts a new ritual, which takes about 15 seconds to cast(and possibly some reagents) while the other minions are being slaughtered, a new and more powerfull minion rises. This minion has quite some power but not much more health then the lower level minions, so while there is only one of the lower level minions remaining, the more powerfull one starts attacking one of the orcs, the necromancer once again starts casting powerfull hexes to refill his almost empty manapool. another orc drops dead, allowing to necromancer to summon three new low level minions, soon the remaining orc is overwhelmed by the minions and the necromancer uses his corps to heal all his minions.
As the Minion Master(=the necromancer) follows the road throught the forest, he sees a town not far away. If he wants to enter the town, he will need to disband his minions, unless he wants to be attacked by the local guards.

Wow, that was rather long to create an image of what I mean . I'll try it in short now. Both Conjurers and Necromancers(in the form of Minion Masters) would need a large manapool, as they need a lot of magic to cast the rituals to summon otherworldly creatures, this means they wouldn't be able to have a high constitution or strength, making them very fragile beings whitout minions. The creatures summoned by conjurers would only last a certain amount of time, while the necromancer needs corpses to summon his minions, this would balance things out in my opinion. Also to make sure that a necromancer would not gain to much minions, forcing him to disband his minions when he wants to enter a town or any other area where there are a lot of civil beings would be an option.
Also smarter creatures, like humans may realise that to defeat the army of a conjurer or minion master, they need to focus uppon the conjuror/necromancer and not his summons/minions. This would force the conjurer/necromancer to retreat or rapidly create a shell of minions around him, so that the enemie can't hit him.

I think this is one of the longest posts I've ever written.
Posted By: Hurri

Re: Wishlist - 03/08/07 02:56 PM

It would be cool to have somekind of house or castle to just relax in.
(Croft manor )
Posted By: Xapphire

Re: Wishlist - 03/09/07 10:59 PM

Ok I "Wish" that these would be included, or in my opinion these would make the game so much better

1.) I would enjoy being able to like create and own a store, maybe make some robberies happen, maybe I need to buy recources from the market, or maybe I need a provider, perhaps having like a stock, you know..

2.) A home, like being able to buy a home, What I loved to do in Divine divinity was to take my teleporter stones and after I killed some humans and stole their house, redecorating things.. (yeah.. shut up..) And making it somewere I can go...

3.) I'd basically overall love the the fact that I can be a rich mansion owner, or perhaps be a poor burglar, like, something that I for once dont' have to be a overpowered Warrior capable of killing any normal peasant, like, I'd love to be able to have a choice, perhaps instead of being overpowered, I can have guards...?
Even if I am overpowered, let me live in a nice manor..? own a cat.. ^.^

4.) I found that there was no mount.. Well I'd love there to be one ^.^, and stables lol ^.^

5.) Another thing would be the gear, like if I have a character who is a ranger, and lets say I'd like him to be all cloaked and dark, perhaps like to blend in.. with the forest, or maybe a tree hugger elf, like Id like him to be cloaked with a cloak but not loose all those pesky stats that I'd find on my Ultra Dragon skin Cowl of Death ^.^..

6.) I love it to base on more of a Divine Divinity feel rather than the Beyond Divinity feel, as in I loved the villages, cities, but didnt like the lava sorounded imp planets, and the realms which were like magically enhanced, though the magic librarys and the wizards chambers were all cool ^.^..

7.) More things to do when talking and adventuring in a Human City, like you know, Bar fights, occasional criminals, robberies, ranks in the Guard, as well as keeping those guilds.

8.) I'd like Roleplay actions, like I'd be able to laugh, emote, hug, w/e.. just to get me that certain feel of "Im not in a frozen world..." \

9.) I'd love to be able and explore all those little parts of the game that I just couldnt, like if I see a shield on the wall.. What stops me from reaching it.. O.o...? OR some healing potions on an alchemists workshop.. Perhaps after I take one then I'll be poisioned O.o??...

10.) I'd love to be able to have like clothing ranks, as in, If I was talking in a guards Uniform, I'm always irritated how everyone responds with like a Hey you.. Or if I have a beggars clothing, everyone will give me money.. you know..?
But if I see a guard with armor, I'd also love to be able to have that armor, and make sure it actually looks like it ^.^

11.) Realistic and random happenings, were If I'm walking on the street, I can trip fall, maybe I can find some buried treasure (lol)

These are all things that would make the game better, I am a player, so I've tried everything I possibly can in divine and beyond divinity, and After I played, I figured these were the things that would make it so much better, like I didnt help make the game so its not just about making it, its about how it would be like when someone plays it over 3 times ^.^

If you guys need more info, contact me at arpolk@chicagogenn.com arpolk@chicagogenn.com

Posted By: DewiMorgan

Re: Wishlist - 17/09/07 01:33 AM

I posted these on another company's forum, but they apply here too. Heavily edited for brevity, but still wordy, sorry:
[Edit: link to original thread: http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums?showtopic=751439

Quote:

What I’d really, really, dearly love in RPGs is the ability to talk with the people you’re fighting.

So you have the choice not just to kill or run away, but to:

taunt
Successful taunts cause target to enter berserk mode. We already have berserk in Oblivion, taunts in every single FPS since Doom, though admittedly only Duke3D ever did them well tongue.gif

stop fighting and talk out your differences,
Oblivion did this with the "Yield" command, but unfortunately made it related to the opponent's disposition to you, so regardless of your speech skill, you could never successfully yield to someone who had attacked you first, since they "hated" you enough to attack you.

offer them gold if they stop attacking
Not done anywhere yet, but in an engine that has yield and trading, should not be too great a leap.

And not just have you try to start or end the combat: have NPCs:
taunt you
Aka have NPCs cast "berserk" on you, with your speech ability governing your saving throw.

beg for their lives when beaten near death
OK, it's not been done, but how hard is it?
Code:

when npc starts combat
if (NPC's strength) < (0.1 * PC's apparent ferocity)
then
if (npc can flee)
flee
else if (npc can surrender)
surrender
else
fight

when npc takes damage
if NPC is in combat, AND is marked as surrender-capable, AND (HP < 5% OR AMMO == 0)
if (npc can flee)
flee
else if (npc can surrender)
surrender
else
fight



(I say "apparent ferocity" as I feel this should be a combination of things like reputation current health, arms and armour, whether his weapon is holstered, whether he's just defeated anyone nearby in a fight, XP level, charisma, and so on. Comparing the NPC against how strong he thinks the PC is, would be a bit harder to code but more realistic, I feel, than to compare the NPC's real strength against the PC's real strength. It would mean that a wussy or pacifist PC could "fake out" strong characters by just looking buff.

You could get prettymuch infinitely complex, like with anything in a RPG. You could take into account daft stuff like whether the PC's outfit was made of matching pieces, and whether the NPC thought people in uniform were scary, or wusses... but beyond a certain point, the player stops being able to second-guess the results completely accurately, and at that point it becomes "realistic": no point getting any more complex than that. So, a simple "reputation + random roll" might even suffice for most purposes.

Basic flee/surrender/fight decision making, ending combat before death, is not beyond today's technology, would not take ten years to develop, but nobody, so far as I know, has ever done it in any game.

If the NPC is at 3 hp and he's out of ammo he will toss aside his gun and beg for his life damnitt! And if I choose to spare him and let him go, I have to run the risk of him attacking me again when he's healed up and rearmed. And if I choose not to spare him, and people see me killing an unarmed cripple begging for his life, then that could be a problem for me too!

Combine it with what we already know is in engines such as Oblivion: NPCs can pick up stuff when you are in the area. So you spare them, or they flee; they move to the weapon cabinet, grab a healthpack and weapon, and attack again!

If you also make bad guys heal and rearm over time if you leave the area, that would obviously improve realism too.


Have beating someone unconscious with your fists mean something, too: that you have beaten them, disarmed them, but spared their lives and they and people nearby know it: some might consider you hardass but merciful, others might consider you weak for your morality. OK, this hasn't been done yet, but shouldn't take ten years. Past combat affects the opponent's disposition towards you.

This depends on the NPC, and whether you or they fled/surrendered/fell unconscious, and on who started the fight: if they attacked you and you still spared them, that's a possible plus. If you attacked them and they fled, or were beaten unconscious, probably not so much of a plus!

Having people nearby affected could be harder. However, the Oblivion engine has murder detection within a certain range, the Ultima engines have theft detection - can't an engine have "sparing" detection, too?


Stuff like that’d make the decision to kill in combat so much more immersive & meaningful. I am hoping that Oblivion’s yield was just the first step on this road, and I applauded it - but I really hope that it’s taken further in future.

I am so sick, so terribly, terribly sick of fights being to the death, and death being nothing but a source of XP. Nobody in real life has a bar fight to the death, not unless stuff goes really wrong.

NPCs shouldn’t willingly attack someone who can clearly wipe the floor with them, unless they're defending something more important to them than their own life.


Combat should have further repercussions. What if a woman bandit out by a deserted shack demands your food so you kill her, but then you go inside the shack and see a baby in a crib. You killed its mother, and if you leave it there, it will die slowly of thirst/starvation. What do you do? This one doesn't even take any PROGRAMMING! In the construction kit, place female bandit, place baby, bingo, moral dilemma in a can!

You could, with simple scripted rules, add more depth. Take the rule "all children without parents turn feral within one week, have disposition to player reduced, blah blah." So, you kill a guard, then later find his children, gone feral with nobody to look after them. What do you do?

You have the rules: "guard feeds and tortures prisoner daily on schedule. Guard kills prisoner when a set plot trigger happens. Prisoner starves without food for more than two days." So, you spare a guard's life and later see him torturing and killing a prisoner. Or you kill him and find the prisoner. Or never find the prisoner until it's died of thirst anyway... suddenly, your guard-killing has consequences.

If you kill or spare someone, you will affect that person's dependants, lovers, employers, friends, enemies, victims and others.

OK, now this, building a web of relationships between people, is more complex. But... not THAT complex.
Permit NPCs be members of any number of factions (already in most engines).
Extend that by allowing them to have relationships not just with factions, but with characters too.
Give each relation a value from -100 (utter enemy, would love you for killing him) to +100 (close family member, would never forgive you).
If you are seen to have killed a person (using existing theft/murder-detection system), check that person's relationship network, and affect each person [edit: or faction] in the network by that amount.
If the death was a murder, double the amount.

If you want to get really fancy, as well as the relation value, give each character "onOwnDeath" and "onContactdDeath" script hooks so that you can change conversation options and whatnot, as well as just their dispositions.
[edit: this allows us to modify the above-described hardcoded "all children without parents turn feral within one week" to "dependents who's guardians are dead". No need to restrict to children, can include pets, slaves, etc, who become freed by their master's death, who's disposition to the player may go up, etc]

None of that is rocket science. None is beyond what is plausible. None is 10 years' work. Most of it is maybe 10 days', plus time for voice acting the surrender dialogues. But this, giving meaning to death, is the stuff that separates RPG from FPS.





There was some good feedback. One person pointed out that it is definitely possible as Shin Megami Tensei:Nocturne does much of it.

More stuff I'd like to see later, if I don't get flamed rotten for posting something as long as this as my first post here
Posted By: Raze

Re: Wishlist - 17/09/07 03:59 AM

offer them gold if they stop attacking
I'd rather die (and reload) than give up my loot.

These conversation options could be good for some main plot or quest related fights, but I wouldn't want to talk out my differences with every thug or thief who started something with me.
There were places in Planescape: Tourment where you had to die to advance the main plot. It could be interesting to have a quest where you were sent to kill some demon or wizard, but they were impossible to beat, requiring you to yield and talk your way out of the situation.


beg for their lives when beaten near death

I'd want their oath not to attack me again, or aid others in doing so, before sparing them. In addition to common sense, if nearby NPCs are going to judge you harshly for not sparing someone, you would need justification to refuse someone the second time they attacked you.

If there are going to be any responses based on stats or skills, a perceptive person might be able to spot an opponents fake surrender pleas, and get an option to accept, then do a fakeout-turn-your-back-while-preparing-a-counterattack move.


Basic flee/surrender/fight decision making, ending combat before death, is not beyond today's technology

Opponents that attack and then flee are annoying, especially weak ones. If you went hostile on tibars in act 2 of BD, at least you could have the secondary character (set to aggressive) take them all out with a bow while the lead character explored or talked to NPCs, etc.

I hated when the metal slime in the old game Dragon Quest stuck around long enough to get down to 1 HP (a couple minutes, IIRC), so you only had to get one more successful hit in for a large experience reward, and then fled.

If weaker opponents (ie without appreciable experience points or loot) simply avoided you, though, that would be good. There were a couple artifacts in one of the old Ultima games (or maybe Final Fantasy?) that would either repel weak opponents and attract strong ones, or repel strong and attract weak. The same kind of thing could be done with a skill or spell.


Welcome to the forum.
Posted By: DewiMorgan

Re: Wishlist - 17/09/07 05:19 AM

Quote:

I'd rather die (and reload) than give up my loot.




Unless (as you suggested) the person attacking you is someone you want to preserve for some other reason, perhaps, yes. For example, if you know that killing someone in this faction will break a quest for you, or cause you to be fined more than your bribe. Or if reloading takes any significant amount of time, and you have scads of cash. Or, for me the best one: if killing them would cause you to have problems, morally.

And that whole "loot" thing - that's exactly what I'm arguing against anyway. Mobs should not, I feel, just be things to click on until dead, then to loot. I prefer a little more moral depth to my massacres. There's no moral qualm in killing something that attacks you once it sees you, until you kill it. But there is, in one who growls if you come close to its nest, attacks if you come closer, then rolls on its back and tries to surrender if you hand it its [nocando] on a plate.

Quote:

I wouldn't want to talk out my differences with every thug or thief who started something with me.




Completely agree: compulsory pacifism would get old fast, and would feel too Disney - but I'd just like the option. I hate having to play every single game as a violent jarhead who doesn't think at all about leaving more corpses lying around the countryside than the first day of hunting season.

Quote:

It could be interesting to have a quest where you were sent to kill some demon or wizard, but they were impossible to beat, requiring you to yield and talk your way out of the situation.




Yeah - though, some would whine like that not being able to kill him was destroying their freedom of choice, so I'd be inclined to just give him the ability to be killed, but make it near-impossibly hard. Plonk him in some source of infinite heals, perhaps, so you would need to kill him in one hit, or get him away from that source.

But then people might grumble that although there were multiple solutions, the difficulty of the solutions was not equal. But, sod them, I say :P

Quote:

If there are going to be any responses based on stats or skills, a perceptive person might be able to spot an opponents fake surrender pleas, and get an option to accept, then do a fakeout-turn-your-back-while-preparing-a-counterattack move.


Heh - great idea. Evil, but great

Quote:

Opponents that attack and then flee are annoying, especially weak ones.




Not as annoying (to me) as having them just stand there and die like gormless cannonfodder
Nipping in, attacking, then fleeing is the obvious tactical move, especially if you are weak.
If it gets annoying, I'd invest in a bow to pick them off as they run away.

Quote:

If weaker opponents (ie without appreciable experience points or loot) simply avoided you, though, that would be good. There were a couple artifacts in one of the old Ultima games (or maybe Final Fantasy?) that would either repel weak opponents and attract strong ones, or repel strong and attract weak. The same kind of thing could be done with a skill or spell.




Ooh, nice ideas. Though, weak/strong boundary would need to be judged relative to your own strength, to scale.

Quote:

Welcome to the forum.


Thanks
Posted By: Raze

Re: Wishlist - 17/09/07 06:46 AM

Or, for me the best one: if killing them would cause you to have problems, morally.

There are lots of quest or story related reasons you may not wish to fight/kill someone, but unless the game is balanced to have fewer, more strategic fights, I can not see this being a common situation. Unless everyone started off stating their motive before attacking you, it could be hard to keep track of who was misguided, who was acting out of desperation and who was just greedy or evil.

Fight conversations, or background stories, may be more common in friendly towns, but there will likely be animals, demons, evil wizards, etc that either can not or will not accept any compromise. If the enemy's goal is to wipe out all resistance and kill or enslave everyone, you may be able to bribe, trick, or reason with the odd one, but as a general rule if spotted you would either have to kill or be killed. Though as you say, another option some of the time would be nice to have (especially if there were at least some disadvantages or missed opportunities as a result of unnecessary killing)


I prefer a little more moral depth to my massacres.

I don't mind a little moral depth, but as long as there is otherwise enough story and non-combat quests in a game, I'm fine with straight experience points and loot based massacres.


There's no moral qualm in killing something that attacks you once it sees you, until you kill it.

In DD, there was a group of soldiers which fell under a spell, and would attack you on sight. At first I ran away without attacking back. However, I could not tell the army about the situation or otherwise get any help, so I went back and killed them for the experience points. Had I waited, the mind control would have worn off after encountering one of the mages that cast the spell.


[quest to kill an unbeatable foe, forcing a surrender]
some would whine like that not being able to kill him was destroying their freedom of choice, so I'd be inclined to just give him the ability to be killed, but make it near-impossibly hard.

I was thinking more along the lines of just making the opponent a much higher level. If the quest was near the start of the game, the opponent could have a mid or late game level. Talk now, or wait until much, much later to use brute force.


[opponents that attack and then flee]
If it gets annoying, I'd invest in a bow to pick them off as they run away.

Where possible, that is what I would do. It was really annoying in old console games / ports (like Final Fantasy) that had randomly generated encounters as you walked around. You could get the combat intro, then wait for the game to set up combat, then have some weak opponent run away, then get the stats screen showing you got zero experience and loot, then get the combat extro and return to the regular environment. Even some newer games (though none recent, that I know of) can have similar random encounters.
Posted By: DewiMorgan

Re: Wishlist - 17/09/07 04:09 PM

The more you speak of DD, the more extremely cool it sounds. I only came here because I stumbled over the "moral dilemmas" thread in Google and thought "hey cool! People designing games right!"... but now I think I'll have to buy and play these games Them and PlaneScape: Torment.

Quote:

I can not see this being a common situation.


Not all fights must be moral quandaries, no. But I would argue that "fights that absolutely must be fatal" should be even rarer, or not even exist in the game.
Quote:

[...]you would either have to kill or be killed. Though as you say, another option some of the time would be nice to have


But there I disagree. There is no excuse, ever, in any situation whatever, against any monster whatever, for any combat to be required to be fatal. Not even a rat. Not even the big end-of-game badguy. Especially not him!

It is possible to make it so that it's reasonable that you need to only kill or be killed. A crystal monster in an inescapable arena, that can't talk, doesn't breathe knockout gasses, poisoned darts bounce off, and blunt "concussing" weapons shatter it. It's possible... but really sucky game design. That situation would tell me "the game designer spoke of choices and consequences when designing the game, but the level designer was just not listening, and has gone out of his way to strip all choice from me." And if there's a class of monsters that combat must be fatal with, then it's just silly. Worse than silly, it's poor game design. Worse than that, it's a FPS.

I'm also fine with straight experience points and loot based massacres, but only because there is, for the moment, nothing more realistic. Final Fantasy/Anachronox minigame-style combat is, to me, the epitome of combat done wrong in every imaginable way.

No idea if the DD engine has anything relating to NPC interactions with eachother, or if it's a "have them all stand where the designer placed them and wait for the NPC to talk to them" type engine, but in Fallout 3, they'll be using Radiant AI (hopefully not the crippled version from Oblivion), and it occurred to me that NPCs should be able to stop killing eachother, too. ( from http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums?showtopic=755396 )

Quote:

As I understand it, radiant AI had to be scaled back in earlier games by taking a shotgun to its groin, because otherwise NPCs would end up massacring eachother.

My suspicion is that this is because NPCs had exactly three reactions if other NPCs hit them, steal from them, or otherwise triggered a disposition change:
1 "I'm Oblivious!"
2 "Hey, I'm on your side!/I see wut u did there!" (OK, maybe they only said this to the PC, not sure).
3 "GRAAAH! FITE TO DETH PLZKTHX!"

I propose scrapping the first level, and adding some more levels to more accurately reflect reality.

1 "Hey, I'm on your side!/I see wut u did there!" - verbal acknowledgement of wrongdoing and a warning. Important first step in escalating hostilities... or in changing people's behaviour so that they don't need to escalate.

Opponent reactions can be: insult, ignore, apologise but continue with action, apologise and change selected action. "Sorry, I'll be more careful."

2 "What do you think you are doing? Were you born in a Vault?"...etc. Insults are the lowest level of conflict in real life. They do sometimes escalate, but they deal no damage, and conflict at this level has a good chance of defusing itself. It serves the purpose of making the NPC stop his activity and respond instead to the insult.

Opponent reactions can be: bitchslap, insult, ignore, apologise but continue with action, apologise and change selected action. "At least I wasn't born in a brahmin-shed!"

3 *BITCHSLAP* Yeah. You know you want to slap that annoying fan. Well, so do NPCs. Now they get to. A zero-damage physical attack, perhaps with brief stun and knockback, and a deeply satisfying sound. But it's zero damage. Could escalate, but still, not necessarily.

Opponent reactions can be: attack, bitchslap back (should be low %chance, or can get silly like the link), insult, ignore, apologise but continue with action, apologise and change selected action. "Eh sorry - guess I deserved that." "What was that for?" "Hey... *slap*!"

4 "I'm gonna beat you like a redheaded stepchild!" Even when you enter the realm of doing physical damage, there is no earthly reason that anyone would want to fight a friend to the death. Their goal in combat is to beat their opponent until he gives in or falls unconscious - NOT to kill. They won't draw a weapon.

Opponent reactions are prettymuch defend, surrender, or run, like with any combat, but they do have the option to also escalate the combat by drawing a weapon... but this would not be common. Nobody in a bar brawl whips out a gun or a knife. It's just not done. Surrendering on either side is very likely to be accepted, though they might give one last [censored]slap or curse.

5 "GRAAAH! FITE TO DETH PLZKTHX!" - Between faction members, there is no earthly reason to fight to the death for anything less than a murder. Even in a fight to the death, NPCs should be able to at least try to surrender to eachother.

Opponent reactions as above. Surrendering on either side might not be accepted, but offering it might move the combat down a notch to just a beating (same mechanism as previous, really).

Hope that makes sense. In human interaction, we have many social tools to prevent violence, and one of those is violence escalation levels. Even in murders, it is very rare indeed for someone to switch straight from normal to a murderous rage - they generally slide through "verbal abuse" and "punishment" first. And the vastly overwhelming majority of people who enter those first two conflict levels do NOT go on to the "murderous rage" step. People carrying weapons do not always draw them in combat: in fact, against friends, they almost never do.

So, it's not just the player who could benefit from nonlethal combat.

But, what about the long term? If someone's beaten someone else unconscious, should that affect their disposition to eachother? Make the NPCs avoid eachother more? Likely, yes.




Posted By: Raze

Re: Wishlist - 17/09/07 10:41 PM

There is no excuse, ever, in any situation whatever, against any monster whatever, for any combat to be required to be fatal.

I don't see that it makes much difference to gameplay if fights end with death or unconsciousness. There have been games where party members fell unconscious if their hit points fell too low, and the party was defeated if everyone became unconscious. I think this was mostly implemented as an alternative to resurrecting dead party members, though.

Depending on how it is implemented, exclusive non-fatal combat could be seen as an attempt to dumb down the game or target it to young children, which could negatively effect reviews of the game.


It is possible to make it so that it's reasonable that you need to only kill or be killed. A crystal monster in an inescapable arena, that can't talk, doesn't breathe knockout gasses, poisoned darts bounce off, and blunt "concussing" weapons shatter it.

How about conscription and then being dropped in the middle of any war zone? Sure, you might be able to convince the other side you are there against your will, assuming you get close enough to talk without being killed, and they can understand you, and they believe you, and assuming your side doesn't see you and brand you as either a coward or a deserter. In a one on one encounter with an enemy, you might just both withdraw, if there are more you would at best likely end up as a prisoner, which probably wouldn't be very pleasant, and definitely wouldn't make for a good game.


Worse than that, it's a FPS.

Well, we certainly wouldn't want that. I'd rather combat be eliminated completely, and have an adventure game with RPG elements. Actually, I'd buy an adventure game set in Rivellon (same world as DD), Nemisis (BD) or whatever locations Larian has expanded to in the next gen game (AFAIK back in Rivellon, but we will see more areas, or just different ones).


No idea if the DD engine has anything relating to NPC interactions with eachother

NPCs can wander around, and some can change based one certain quests or triggers, but they usually do not independently interact with each other. You can (rarely) get enemies wandering too near to friendly NPCs in a couple of areas and attacking them (important NPCs are protected from dying, though), but NPCs do not steal from each other, pick up anything you have dropped, etc.


1 "Hey, I'm on your side!/I see wut u did there!" - verbal acknowledgement of wrongdoing and a warning. Important first step in escalating hostilities... or in changing people's behaviour so that they don't need to escalate.

In DD there was a particular grumpy entity which would challenge you if approached. By picking the right conversation options, you could safely approach twice (there are a couple quest items near it, if you have gotten those quests), after which it will simply turn hostile if you got too close.


3 *BITCHSLAP* Yeah. You know you want to slap that annoying fan.

This would get used a lot with one particular spoiled brat in DD, who is otherwise protected from any form of direct or indirect attack.


In human interaction, we have many social tools to prevent violence, and one of those is violence escalation levels.

Unfortunately, these levels don't seem to be terribly effective sometimes. Placed in a game and widely implemented, they could make combat realistic enough not to be fun anymore.


Even in murders, it is very rare indeed for someone to switch straight from normal to a murderous rage

Vampires or zombies don't need a murderous rage, they just need to be hungry. Soldiers in a war just need to do what they were trained to do.


Part of the appeal of RPG games is collecting and upgrading equipment, particularly with action RPG games, where that may be the main focus. Getting rid of combat, or mostly replacing it with conversations, will eliminate or greatly reduce this aspect. There was a time when every RPG game was compared to Diablo, and faulted if it didn't have a similar 'collect better equipment so you can kill stronger monsters so you can collect better equipment' model. I don't know about current games in development, but there have been RPG games that were dumbed down and made more combat focused at the insistence of the publishers, because that is where the larger market was (and perhaps still is). Even with at least some movement away from simple action RPGs, I don't see much market for a generalized non-fatal combat scheme.

Alrik has also questioned the necessity of violence in RPGs, here and in other forums (IIRC he posted a couple links in the RPG Snippets topic).
Posted By: AlrikFassbauer

Re: Wishlist - 18/09/07 12:20 PM

In Antwort auf:

Alrik has also questioned the necessity of violence in RPGs, here and in other forums (IIRC he posted a couple links in the RPG Snippets topic).





At RPGWatch, I recently mused about the lack of a system nowadays like we had with the Virtues in the classic Ultima games.

This is also a question whether I really needd violence in order to complete a task at all - nd in general: Whether I need violence (and *any* combat is violent !) in *any* role playing game at all !

I recently read a review of the old D&D game (by SSI) "Al-Qadim: The Genie's Curse") stating that this game gave experience points rather for solving riddles instead of fighting.

With the top-seller on top of all C-RPGs made by Blizzards, combat has become the de-facto standard (you could call it an "industry standard" as well) for ALL role-playing games to give experience points to characters.

The industry seems to believe that non-violent games wouldn't sell at all - or at least would have no appeal to the potential, desired target group of buyers - otherwise they would've implemented that.

PS:T proves otherwise, but still the industry clearly orients itself towards what slls most : And that was 8and still is) everything involving fast-paced action, like in Blizzards Action-RPGs.

Non-violent RPGs just don't exist. It's as simple as that. Therefore one could argue that violence is in part defining the genre itself. Like FPS games, as well.

Any non-violent RPG would rather turn into an adventure game, only, that no-one ever made this attempt (except in part from PS:T, in which you can fight as well).


The total absence of any ethic system (apart from reputation) like the Virtues System shown in Ultima means in the end that the uindustry believes that ethicvs have no use in C-RPGs - or in ANY video game at all ! I mean - I hardly don't ever know any game outsoide the RPG genre which has some kind of ethics in it. I just don't know any.

The amount of ressources, time and involved developers needed to develop any ethics system in an C-RPG seems so "high" that the companies rather tend to decide to leave such an ethics system out - simply because it costs ressources.

And in the end here the "economization of the real world" takers place, where anything social is consideredmerely to produce costs and is therefore NOT supported, meanwhile everything that FDOES bring money in - the economy, as a whole, companies in special - is supported.

Ethics are seemingly considered an "fluffy", "cloudy" thing that has no real-life effect, instead of for example money coins you can actually hold in your hands and buy miney with them. So, the one thing is supported (the money), manwhile the other thing is not, because you can't hold fast to it.

Which means, that whole concepts like ethics are currently regarded inferior to material concepts, like money, otherwise it would be rather emphasized than they are right now.

In the total end, this "economization of the real wold" leads to something that weighs something rather on its economical ability, status and economical usability than for anything else. Social networks cannot be measured in economical terms, so they aren't implemented and rather ignored.

In the end,. this leads into human beings considered as nothing as "useable" or "non-useable" for econoimy. And that is, in the last end, what the Nazis did with everyone who did - from their point of view - produce nothing but costs. Old people, handicapped people.


This lack of any philosophy, and of any ethics, is a purely materialisric point of view.

And this materialistic point of view materializes in games which implement no ethics, because the companies see no use for ethics to be implemented, because otherwise it *would* be implemented, and because there are no ethics implemented, everything is allowed. Yes, EVERYTHING.

(Except of course things not allowed by some design decisions.)

Posted By: DewiMorgan

Re: Wishlist - 19/09/07 06:23 AM

You don't see that it makes much difference to gameplay if fights end with death or unconsciousness. And in gameplay terms, if you make there be no difference between knocking out with a stunstick and killing with a sword, there is no difference whatever. But in moral terms, there is a world of difference.

Quote:

I don't see much market for a generalized non-fatal combat scheme.


Good that it's notthing like what I'm suggesting then :P I'm just asking for the choice! The OPTION NOT TO KILL if I feel like I don't want to! This is not a hard concept either to understand, or to design into a game.

But there really ought to be gameplay differences for combats against NPCs, at least. Against mobs, perhaps leave it purely to morality, or perhaps have a "pacifist" voluntary challenge (Like nethack: http://www.steelypips.org/nethack/conduct.html ).

The idea of "exclusive non-fatal combat" is even worse than "exclusively fatal combat". Understand that I am arguing for neither: just that in every combat, the choice should exist! If you PC's chosen weapon is the stun-stick, then it may be a harder fight, perhaps: but your opponent will be alive at the end of it. If your PC's chosen speciality is stealth, he should be able to sneak past most fights; if speechcraft, he should be able to talk his way out of them.

Being in the middle of a war zone sounds more like a wargame, not an RPG, but, yes, there might be RP reasons for it I guess: in which case, if the combat was fatal-only, no surrender, no quarter given, then it's harsher even than most war zones. And that would be poor design on the part of a level designer, and would starkly limit the choices of the player.

If the game designer can't make a scenario navigable without wholesale slaughter by the PC, then perhaps they need to rethink the whole scenario, because they have most likely been writing it as a battle sim, not an RPG.

Whether you could make combat "realistic enough not to be fun anymore" depends on what you find fun in RPG combat. Personally, I find the combat "minigame" in almost all rpgs from Ultima 1 to Oblivion becomes just as tedious as the "pipemania" hacking-minigame in BioShock, which is part of why I am arguing against making it a compulsory, fight-every-sodding-monster-in-the-world subgame, and arguing instead for alternatives if the player wishes.

A zombie is an interesting case. Vampires might be reasoned with, but zombies and golems less so. They could, however, still reasonably be fled from, stunned, repelled, sneaked by, trapped, ensorcelled, dispelled, teleported elsewhere, distracted, tricked, or avoided, though, amongst other approaches.

"Let's go bash a mob and get us some phat lewt" is the most unoriginal, unimaginative way of gaining equipment. I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be a possibility, just that avoiding it altogether should also be a possibility, if the player wants to play as, say, a thief, shepherd, illusionist, blacksmith, or indeed anything other than a warrior or psychopath.

Quote:

There was a time when every RPG game was compared to Diablo


Diablo... a RPG? It was a Roguelike dungeonbash with no RP elements at all. It saddens me that people think anything in a fantasy setting is a RPG. Then again, people are calling BioShock an RPG, so what can you do?

Quote:

Alrik has also questioned the necessity of violence in RPGs,


Well I'm NOT! I'm not questioning the necessity of violence! It would be utterly unrealistic and silly if adventurers did not have the choice to be violent. I am instead questioning the necessity of the necessity of violence. You don't have to have to kill someone in order for the game to be fun, and removing that constraint makes the game, in my opinion, infinitely better, deeper and more fun than if it forces the player's hand.

I enjoy killing people sometimes - but how banal is that decision, if I had no choice anyway? The deaths become meaningless. It's as banal as protecting the children, if the children are invincible: your "decisions" become empty, and lack any moral depth.

@Alrik:
Quote:

And this materialistic point of view materializes in games which implement no ethics, because the companies see no use for ethics to be implemented, because otherwise it *would* be implemented, and because there are no ethics implemented, everything is allowed. Yes, EVERYTHING.




I feel that "yes, EVERYTHING" absolutely should be allowed. You have far less of a morality tale if the babies, children and pregnant women either do not exist, or are immortal. You also have far less of a morality tale if you are required to kill them. The best games for exploring your own morality at the moment are the GTAs.

You can only explore your own morality if you have the ability to make moral choices. Those choices need to include the ability to not kill, tht I argued for so vehemently above - but also the ability to kill. Otherwise, powerless, you are just subject to the morality of the game designer. The same with theft, and all other moral decisions.

http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1173 is a good article about killable children and child death in Prey. I found it very interesting that despite the kerfuffle, only one person had actually made any kind of moral decision in the game: they decided not to kill the kids. That would have been my FIRST decision. But even the author of the article, horrified by his own actions that he was "forced" to do, mowed them down in their dozens. But one player just ran on by them. A morality decision, and one that I admire the game for giving him, even if he and Richard Garriot are the only two people who might have spotted it.
Posted By: Raze

Re: Wishlist - 19/09/07 10:46 AM

[I don't see much market for a generalized non-fatal combat scheme.]
Good that it's notthing like what I'm suggesting then :P I'm just asking for the choice! The OPTION NOT TO KILL if I feel like I don't want to!

Let me rephrase that. In the context of a group of evil wizards trying to bring a powerful demon overlord back into the world, both of whom are motivated by hatred and desiring only power and revenge, I can not see how you can *always* have the option for non-violent conflict resolution. Maybe you can banish zombies, mind control animals to send them far from settlements, etc, but the troll you sneak past today could be burning farmhouses tomorrow.

I also don't see where always having the option for non-violence conflict resolution would be a better marketing feature that having this option most (or even some) of the time. Sure, being able to talk your way out of a fight or sneak past enemies, etc is great for role playing, but I don't think there are very many people who would always want a non-violent solution (in a game) regardless of the situation or the type of opponent they faced. Some may choose that path if was possible, but few would lament it if it wasn't.


perhaps have a "pacifist" voluntary challenge

Given that there is a combat system in Larian's next game, I'm not sure how you could save the world as a pacifist. Maybe it could be designed in, but I'm not sure how it can done in a reasonable way.


Being in the middle of a war zone sounds more like a wargame, not an RPG

Most RPGs do involve an ongoing or imminent war, or invading demons, or some group trying to take over or destroy the world.


if the combat was fatal-only, no surrender, no quarter given, then it's harsher even than most war zones.

If surrendering was allowed in the game, you would have to be given an opportunity to escape fairly quickly, or it wouldn't be a terribly exciting game. If your opponents can surrender, and can not be trusted to keep a promise of future non-violence, are you to teleport them to some large jail that they can not escape from and that their friends are not going to try to break them out of?

There are many situations where not killing an opponent is just passing the conflict on to someone else, who (not being the main hero) would be much less likely to be able to handle it. Unless you invent some special places or talents reserved just for the good guys, anything banished can be summoned back, anything teleported away can be teleporter back, or your own allies teleported away. Any animals pacified can be angered and sent back to populated areas, etc.



From the background story for DD, written by one of the original evil mages, to the new generation;

Quote:

In my heyday, we of the Damned lived and breathed with one purpose: to avenge the ancient wrongs done to our mighty Order.
...
You must all learn to direct your valuable destructive energies to a greater purpose!
It is your born duty to torture, butcher, enslave and degrade every last member of the Seven Races of Rivellon for what they have done to us! Think of them down there living contentedly in their productive lives when their true destiny is to be at our feet as groveling servants or chattel for our beloved demon allies!
...
I therefore command you with my dying breath to begin the quest for vengeance once again. Sow discord, spread misery and bring death to Rivellon. With the unity of the races truly sundered, there may be enough disorder in the realm to allow the return of our Lord Chaos.
...
Now go forth my children - undemine, spy, murder, rob and torture. Commit every evil act you can think of against our foes, retake the Sword of Lies and open the gates of Hell.
That way, I will be able to return to congratulate you properly - I, and all the dead Legion of the Damned.



Not much room for talking out your differences...
Posted By: Macbeth

Re: Wishlist - 19/09/07 02:44 PM

Quote:

Not much room for talking out your differences...



Touché!
Posted By: Lurker

Re: Wishlist - 19/09/07 05:25 PM

There are many situations where not killing an opponent is just passing the conflict on to someone else, who (not being the main hero) would be much less likely to be able to handle it. Unless you invent some special places or talents reserved just for the good guys, anything banished can be summoned back, anything teleported away can be teleporter back, or your own allies teleported away. Any animals pacified can be angered and sent back to populated areas, etc.

If people can be resurrected or reborn (or even animated), killing them isn't as final as it may seem, either. Especially when confronting evil mages, it's as much of a "temporary solution" as the methods mentioned above.

Moral standards, on the other hand, don't need to be those of today. There have been times and cultures in which people deemed it just foolish to grant mercy to your foes or in which bringing back trophies from killed foes even was an important way of gaining prestige within society. I have no problem with a fantasy world that doesn't use the moral standards of today and in which no sane hero would consider leaving an "evil" foe alive. Though admittedly, most RPGs in which the player character kills hundreds of enemies lack an own system of moral standards.
Posted By: doen

Re: Wishlist - 08/11/07 05:46 PM

don't know if this new game is BD2/DD2 or a whole new thing..?

i would like to see NPC's that join the players team. and i want them to have their own AI routines. if you aren't going to do it properly, don't bother.

if you're not going to have them try to pursue their own ojectives with some degree of intelligence and utilize advantages along the way, don't bother.

if you're not going to make them have preferences for certain weapons, equipment, etc.. and flavour them up with other data, don't bother.

if you're not going to make them have alignments and maybe have them talk to/argue/develop bonds with other team-mates, don't bother..

i don't like the AI i found in BD for monsters or players - and if the non-active char is armed with a ranged weapon WHY DIDN'T YOU MAKE IT TRY TO KEEP DISTANCE FROM THE ENEMIES? -- you really should expand on the tactics and incorporate some settings in your 'trophy' section (so player could maybe specify certain actions to take against certain creatures) - also, if the trophy screen is telling me my characters KNOW a creature is 90% vulnerable to fire and they have some fire arrows/fire weapons/etc then FOR GODS SAKE they should auto-equip them! (..what's the point of having a trophy screen unless to ACT ON that info? ..what's that you say? it's up to the player to do that? ..the less mouse clicking i have to do the better, don't you think?)

you let me pick up a piece of cheese(!) or a stone bottle (which i have found no use for thus far) so go to the trouble of fleshing out the rest of the game also! it's not hard..

..don't bother trying to be an indie company that competes with corporations, your games are cool and all, especially DD and BD. they are just as good if not better then stuff like Baldur's Gate well.. JoWood (german team) is supposed to be a commercial company and their game Gorasul was CRAP! you should be very satisfied with BD! your RTS looks like something I could program (sorry for the backhanded compliment)

just make the coolest darn RPG ever and people will still be buying it in the next 10 years! that's what it's about isn't it? ca$h?.. since the system hasn't yet mind controlled us into buying anything and everything, you're only going to get this cool cash if you cater to your market. so start sowing those seeds! here we are telling you what we want.. notice how it's 90% the same stuff over and over just in differrent forms? ..if you build it WE WILL COME!

i still play old stuff like Wizardry 1! i even spend many hours getting emulators to play these games on my new systems and OTHER PEOPLE also do this..

i spent 48+ hours (non consecutive) getting the info to make the boot disks i needed for a certain game.. now consider i'd also be willing to part with an equivalent amount of cash for an RPG game that has EVERYTHING i want in it! do the math. people pay up to $80 ~ $100 for half decent games like halo3. i'm telling you i'm willing to pay double that if you just bother to make what i'm after.. sure.. don't do it just for me, what's $200 to you? chump change.. but when you multiply this $200 by X amount of people, suddenly it's worth the effort.. i saw 12,000+ people took that poll WHAT CLASS DID YOU CHOOSE FOR YOUR BD CHARACTERS.. so you've had more than 12,000 sales of BD. it was also recently released as a $9.95 sale, so there will be yet another wave of fans ($10 is not $200 but i digress) i paid $70 for BD 3-4 years ago (i always haggle) ..i hated it untill a week ago when i brought DD for $9.95 - now i just hate DD and retried BD (meh. don't mind me i'm just strange, but most RPG fans are)

just make a really cool detailed RPG that allows the player to more or less "experience the world and live in it" and it will still be selling in 10 years.. Wizardry 1 (circa 1980) came with the wizardry gold box set (circa 2004), and they even packaged it with special software to run it because it was SO OLD! (programmed in pascal i think?)

picking up cheese only goes so far.. BD is a great game tho' - heh. i hated it when i first brought it, now 3-4 years later it's cool!
Posted By: Raze

Re: Wishlist - 09/11/07 02:31 AM

i would like to see NPC's that join the players team. and i want them to have their own AI routines.

I don't have a strong prefference as to single character vs party systems. It depends on how they are done.

if you aren't going to do it properly, don't bother.

I agree. Parties allow much more flexibility, but there are a lot more things that need to be done right to have a good system.


if you're not going to make them have preferences for certain weapons, equipment, etc.. and flavour them up with other data, don't bother.

I'd rather create a character that I want than try to find a pre-existing character in the game that most closely matches this. I don't mind forming a party from recruited characters, but given a choice I'd probably create my own.


Gorasul had a couple interesting ideas, but was way too short, and very poorly balanced wrt money.
It is my understanding that LED Wars had very good AI for the time it was released. I bought it off eBay awhile ago, but have not got around to trying it yet.
Posted By: doen

Re: Wishlist - 09/11/07 03:28 AM

I don't have a strong prefference as to single character vs party systems. It depends on how they are done.
i used to prefer a team-based RPG such as Baldur's Gate etc. but single player RPG's such as BD and DD have proven to me it's possible to make a decent single player RPG - that is, when summoned or NPC's follow/join the player. (otherwise it's too hard to do it alone, and show me the magalomaniac hero who attempts to save the realm by his lonesome and i'll show you a fresh naieve corpse )

I agree. Parties allow much more flexibility, but there are a lot more things that need to be done right to have a good system.
we're on the same page there.. we could maybe flesh out those things (what would need to be done) you up for it?

I'd rather create a character that I want than try to find a pre-existing character in the game that most closely matches this. I don't mind forming a party from recruited characters, but given a choice I'd probably create my own.
ah, of course.. we'd all take 'Arnie' as our warrior if we could..
have randomly generated chars for this purpose? it would require some work, but would deliver what you're after.. i'm open to the idea of 'pre-generated' characters IF they can level up and develop also.. (and possibly if the player is charismatic enough/whatever, they may develop under your instruction/tutelage?)

Gorasul had a couple interesting ideas, but was way too short, and very poorly balanced wrt money.
agreed. some of those random encounters were cool, enchanting your weapon was cool. the mini RTS in the kobold village was nice. the 2 tests in the dragon cave was nifty.. too bad only 15% of the classes were catered for, and many other letdowns.. i'm still scratching my head wondering why it spanned 3-4 CD's???

It is my understanding that LED Wars had very good AI for the time it was released. I bought it off eBay awhile ago, but have not got around to trying it yet.
never heard of it. will google. is it like XenoGears? (i hear that is nice)

pleasure to interface with you, RPG unit
Posted By: Ubereil

Re: Wishlist - 09/11/07 09:52 AM

Svar till:

i'm still scratching my head wondering why it spanned 3-4 CD's???




4 CD's is merely 3 Gig. That's not even ONE DVD . Baldur's Gate wasn't very big either, and that was four (or was it even five?) CD's.

Besides, most of the space was taken up by the graphics. 2D-graphics requires a lot of space, due to the fact that you have to save a lot of images/move etc. I'm not sure exactly how they work, but they require a lot of space compared to 3D-graphics.

Übereil
Posted By: Raze

Re: Wishlist - 09/11/07 12:23 PM

we could maybe flesh out those things (what would need to be done) you up for it?

Perhaps. Most general AI requirements are 'obvious' though, and the details of design would depend on a lot of stuff about Larian's next game we do not know.

Some rough comments follow (it is very late here ) on the minimum requirements for a relatively good/flexible system.

Ranged characters
- need to be able to retreat from direct confrontation, when terrain, stamina or enemy numbers allow
- should only target nearby opponents, or (perhaps better) those already being attacked by another character. Attacking strong opponents that have not noticed you yet can be a bad thing, so there should either be a range limit for automatic attacks, or one based on the strength and numbers of opponents.

Melee characters
- in addition to the usual defensive / normal / aggressive modes, it would be nice to be able to assign characters to protect other party members (either specific characters or anyone in trouble)

All
- settings to attack the nearest / weakest / strongest opponent, to only attack an enemy already under attack or follow another character's lead
- position settings, to stay up frond, stay back, provide support where needed, run away at the slightest sign of danger...
- settings for when to use potions or healing spells, or call for help

Magic is the most complicated, and the hardest to do well.
- Without a spell that does physical damage (or something else generally effective against most opponents), a mage would need to switch spell types based on the opponent.
- In order to avoid wasting mana, a mage would also have to change the strength of spells used, or even switch to a bow, etc for weak opponents.

There is a further complication in that where you are in the game determines how free you are with mana usage, which is something the game's AI can not take into account. If you know there is a tough fight ahead, you may not want to use any mana at all with a mid-strength opponent, but if you are almost back to town and don't want any delays, you might want to blast weaker opponents with a strong spell to finish them off faster.


i'm open to the idea of 'pre-generated' characters IF they can level up and develop also.

I thought you were promoting pre-generated characters with your comments on party AI (individual objectives, weapon preferences, etc). I suppose backgrounds or personalities could be selectable when creating a character, or based on character class, etc (with certain restrictions). Any romances or individual specific quests would have to be pre-done, even if you could customize the character at the start of the game or modify behaviour (weapon training, skills, etc) during.

Whether you start off with a custom character or have to find pre-generated characters in the game to join your party, they would have to level and develop.


never heard of it.

LED Wars is Larian's RTS game, that you gave the backhanded compliment to above.
Posted By: Elerrea

Re: Wishlist - 09/11/07 09:06 PM

My only demands are these:
I dont want a The Elder Scrolls clone,
I dont want a Diablo clone too.
Please,i dont want to download a bisillion patches just like in
Thanks.
Posted By: doen

Re: Wishlist - 10/11/07 12:36 PM

thanks for taking the time to post that info. a good groundwork. would it be best to start another thread for that? i can tabulate that into some kind of chart maybe..? anyway it will be useful for my own programming efforts.

I thought you were promoting pre-generated characters with your comments on party AI (...)
i seem to have gotten lost here..
for a single player game, (which i think this Larian game is going to be) i would like the inclusion of NPC's that 'hang around' or join the player (making the single player game STILL a single player game, but these NPC's follow the player) and this is what makes the 'team' (or party)

so these NPC's that follow will need AI's.

there was an old RPG construction kit called Endless Adventures, and that allowed for these NPC's to comment on things, react to game areas, trade [or not] with the player, etc..

so more involvement with NPC's in general is what i'm after.. and since i've seen picking up cheese in the BD/DD games, i hope they do the NPC's (if any) as detailed.

if the game allows the player character to use personality traits, then they could be used for NPC's also.. either pre-generated (if the NPC's are pre-gen) or use a script to generate random ones (within certain parameters: no conflicting traits like happy/sad etc) romances & individual objectives could be dealt with the same way, if they used them..

roger that on leveling up regardless (just if the player has no control over how they develop, i hope they develop in an intelligent way.. the game Arcanum had NPC's use level-up scripts as they developed, which was kinda cool)

i knew that RTS comment would come back on me
Posted By: Raze

Re: Wishlist - 10/11/07 09:22 PM

Yes, any discussion that starts getting involved should be moved to its own topic (perhaps reposting the relevant info from here), so it is easier to follow, find or refer to at a later time.


Larian's next game will have a multi-player component, but there has been no information revealed about how it will be implemented. They have not said if it will be single character or party based (or single character with henchmen / summoning dolls).

Multi-character, non-turn based games do need to have some form of AI for characters not being directly controlled by the player.
My preference would be to retain complete control over all the characters (stats, skills, equipment, etc) and have an AI system in combat good enough so I don't need to frequently switch between character to adjust what they are doing (except maybe for the toughest battles). I would like battles to require some strategy, so that pretty much rules out an AI complex enough to allow autonomous party members. If I know in advance enough to set up an IA script to handle any fight, then the fights are not challenging enough.

The issue of pre-generated vs custom characters is separate from AI, except that there may be AI restrictions for certain characters (a pre-built warrior may refuse to learn magic, or a coward merchant may refuse to use a melee weapon).
It is certainly easier to create background stories, individual side quests and character interactions with pre-generated party members, but these elements can be designed (with some limitations) to fit certain classes or genders, etc, which could then be assigned to custom created characters.
Posted By: LUCRETIA

Re: Wishlist - 15/11/07 08:03 AM

All I want is a game which if I buy it I will not have to buy a new pc to play it. And no first person please! It makes me dizzy. I also don't like using the keyboard for moving. Just hate it.

Posted By: DrunkenTofu

Re: Wishlist - 21/12/07 02:45 AM

Oh, these are 3 wishes from me:

a) I hope we can get to meet some of the cast from BD again like the DK.

It'd be very funny if the DK was forcefully binded to you for a few minutes.

DK: "No, not again, no! Why is that I always end up soul-forged to a stinking human and a paladin to boot?"

Mistress: "Oops, my mistake."

DK: "Haha, very funny. I want OUT of this now."

b) I hope maybe the player can get to hit on others just for fun or just for your own motives.

c) Finally, I'd enjoy it if we could exchange insults with the Black Ring and even have to work along with them. Just 'cos the characters are all arch enemies, doesn't mean they should freely skirmish.

After all, if the occasion is unsuitable for combat(maybe we're all trapped in an area with barriers which render magical attacks useless and which also drain you physically), then please don't make us fight.

Besides, there're often many times in real life where you're forced to co-operate with the enemy and find a way out.

d) Able to select a list of backgrounds for your character. Like: were you the daughter of a diplomat? Did you suffer a horrendous tragedy thus making you more understanding and tolerant towards others?
Posted By: DrunkenTofu

Re: Wishlist - 17/01/08 01:36 PM

Just this last thing and this is a pretty controversial post(don't read if you don't want to):

IF for example, the game has children or people being abused or has some very heavy moral situations, please... let us ask or find out why! I don't like it if a game designer shoves a situation down my throat and forces me to accept everything as it is. First impressions are never final and never always right. I prefer being able to make amends than slicing everything that's in my path. It doesn't have to employ threatening but also true persuasion.

Therefore, I’d like such situations to be framed around “having good judgement” if you’re looking for a positive outcome. And also, for the game to include some hints… like talking to the right people will let you know what’s going on, while talking to the wrong people might alert certain parties. And depending on your investigating style and skills, you could look at the rooms for signs of violence or if you've medical skills, offer to do a check-up on the person like using a doll so a child can point at the place where it hurts.

Also, abuse is usually a very touchy situation: a relationship of the play of power so it's often two or even more parties involved.

For example: a man might be beaten up daily by his wife 'cos she suffers from mental and other forms of frustrations at work. After some time, to get back at her, he might use something which is important to her, to retaliate like money, her children from previous relationship, jewellery which was inherited from her parents, etc.

And even though he hates the humiliation, he starts to enjoy and look forward to the violence and then perhaps he becomes a thug or starts inflicting injuries upon himself. (I've heard that research has determined that 'cos the brain areas which release chemicals for violence and sexual pleasure are really close, so the brain sometimes confuses the “chemicals” if the violence is too brutal ‘cos it can’t deal with the brutality.)

Therefore, the question isn't "who's right or wrong" but rather, how can I resolve this situation? How can I attain understanding of this situation? And also, given how the gravity of such scenarios, I'd like the player to be punished severely if they choose options that'd likely make the situation worse.

For example: if you threaten a person who's already mentally unstable, she might snap and actually attack you or the people around her. Or even go on a massacre which even though you might be RPing as a baddie, it could have severe repercussions for you. Like what if she murders an important merchant you rely on for business? But either way, there should be some hints from the learning curves so the player can't complain about that they were hit by the consequences.

Or if you make a pass at someone who just suffered a rape ordeal or make fun of him/her sexually, she could try to kill herself later or just isolate herself in her house for months to years.

And note: if a person has just been at the ordeal of a rape/attempted rape, he/she would be unlikely to offer to sleep with you. I don’t buy any of this “every woman/man wants to throw themselves at hero” crap.

Such situations have long-lasting repercussions but bear in mind severe psychological effects are unlikely to manifest themselves overnight. It usually takes weeks to months to even years for such things to occur. For example: there's Annabelle Cheong who turned into a hardcore porno star after she was raped years ago. And there’s this person I know who was raped by an uncle and turned into a sex-maniac. And there're those who turn into torturers and executioners 'cos they were badly beaten/raped as a kid and also grew up in really violent circumstances where they watched people die by the minute and people selling drugs.

Then there’re those who get addicted to porn after a rape while some might become a priest or something. And this is horrible but some people just keep returning to the rapist and it becomes a horrifying cycle of abuse and violence ‘cos in a really “sick” way, the brain can’t break free from reliving the experience.
Posted By: DrunkenTofu

Re: Wishlist - 17/01/08 03:33 PM

Just thought of another feature that'd make things more fun:

when you die, instead of kicking you to the main screen, why not return you back to the battle and let the player try again? I find that might make things more immersive.

Or how about a narrative message when you die, like the old games used to display? It could be something funny, ironic, sombre or even sarcastic? I find that adds some of value to games and makes a battle less frustrating if you failed.
Posted By: Elliot_Kane

Re: Wishlist - 17/01/08 05:17 PM

I like either dead = dead so you have to reload, or there being a really good reason why death has no hold over you, as in Torment or SpellForce. Take away death and you take away challenge in most games.
Posted By: DrunkenTofu

Re: Wishlist - 17/01/08 05:22 PM

Quote:

I like either dead = dead so you have to reload, or there being a really good reason why death has no hold over you, as in Torment or SpellForce. Take away death and you take away challenge in most games.




No... I meant: when you die, the game reloads from where you were last at: a battle or something else.

Bah... I wasn't being too clear.
Posted By: Elliot_Kane

Re: Wishlist - 17/01/08 07:56 PM

Quote:

Quote:

I like either dead = dead so you have to reload, or there being a really good reason why death has no hold over you, as in Torment or SpellForce. Take away death and you take away challenge in most games.




No... I meant: when you die, the game reloads from where you were last at: a battle or something else.

Bah... I wasn't being too clear.




Auto-reload of last save? I have no problem with that idea
Posted By: DrunkenTofu

Re: Wishlist - 17/01/08 08:17 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I like either dead = dead so you have to reload, or there being a really good reason why death has no hold over you, as in Torment or SpellForce. Take away death and you take away challenge in most games.




No... I meant: when you die, the game reloads from where you were last at: a battle or something else.

Bah... I wasn't being too clear.




Auto-reload of last save? I have no problem with that idea




Yeah... Prince of Persia: Sands of Time did just that. I found that made the gameplay a lot smoother instead of kicking said player back to the main screen.
Posted By: Catelee2u

Re: Wishlist - 29/01/08 02:51 AM

I would like firstly NO starforce or other such nasty hassle.

I would love a pocket plane/separate universe realm/personal space to escape to via an item say. It could be customisable with items you find throughout the game and/or purchaseable items. I like the idea of getting a mirror to decorate it and going to other universes through it. Having assistants there to help me and generally being able to customise a LOT. Somewhere more interesting than a house.

I would love the game to work on linux especially.

I like a lot of varied and interesting customisable items and clothing/armor. I love shopping. I like to have pets in game also.

Great storyline is good too as is voice acting. If you can get Stephen Russell who did a lot of voices in the Thief series you'd have the best - he is awesome.
Atmosphere is very important and probably hard to create in a game but it has to have a strong vibe to it that defines it as separate and distinct from all the mindless rpg fodder out there. I think a strong creative vision led by just a few people who have strong and distinct ideas works best as long as they know what they are doing.

I like to have NPC interaction a lot and relationships of various types. Guilds are good. I tend to like sneaky characters and to me a thief should be a thief if there is such a class. Only the thief/rogue should be allowed to pick open certain things. Not every container/lock should be smashable or the thief is just a weak fighter which is pointless. In this respect I was mortified with Neverwinter Nights (though I certainly love the game in many other respects).
I like secrets and hidden areas and easter eggs. I love in Divine Divinity that there are things hidden all over the place. It made me explore every last nook and cranny and is very enjoyable.

I don't care what developers/publishers say I like long games and this might not be do-able, (I don't know) but knowing I have 60 hours of fun ahead of me which will bond me to my character is a plus.

Thanks for all you have done so far
Posted By: Raze

Re: Wishlist - 29/01/08 06:52 AM

Previous suggestions and discussion on owning property (house, castle, etc), elicited a response from Lar (earlier in this topic, IIRC) stating there would be something along those lines in the game, but he did not reveal any details.

The game is being developed for Windows and XBox (so DirectX 9). Linux hasn't been mentioned.

I also like long RPGs, as long as the plot remains engaging. I'll play short games (like adventure games) but if I know they are short before hand I will not buy them soon after release.


Welcome to the forum.
Posted By: Catelee2u

Re: Wishlist - 29/01/08 06:22 PM

Thanks for the welcome. I just saw the thread on property and it is definitely sounding good.
Posted By: Elliot_Kane

Re: Wishlist - 29/01/08 07:53 PM

Welcome to the forum, Catelee
Posted By: DrunkenTofu

Re: Wishlist - 31/01/08 05:44 AM

Welcome catalee.

Btw, maybe Larian could consider simulating "dialogue interactions between npcs" via pop-up icons like Sims?
Posted By: AlrikFassbauer

Re: Wishlist - 31/01/08 08:30 PM

I doubt that this would fit into the screenshots we saw so far.

I'd rather prefer spoken dialogue like in Gothic 1.

Posted By: DrunkenTofu

Re: Wishlist - 01/02/08 02:56 AM

Quote:

I doubt that this would fit into the screenshots we saw so far.

I'd rather prefer spoken dialogue like in Gothic 1.





Eh, you got a good point that they wouldn't really fit in.

Spoken dialogue like in Gothic 1? Hmmm... I haven't played that game before. How does dialogue in that game work?
Posted By: AlrikFassbauer

Re: Wishlist - 02/02/08 04:45 PM

When you go past a chatting group of NPCs, you hear a general murmuring and quiet chattering.

Dialogue is generally spoken, with optional captions/subtitles.

Posted By: DrunkenTofu

Re: Wishlist - 02/02/08 05:01 PM

Quote:

When you go past a chatting group of NPCs, you hear a general murmuring and quiet chattering.

Dialogue is generally spoken, with optional captions/subtitles.





That's kinda cool, something like what PS:T did, right?

P.S. I know this is really offtopic but... don't mind me. I've just got the urge to tickle and honk your avatar's nose.
Posted By: AlrikFassbauer

Re: Wishlist - 02/02/08 10:03 PM

Uh, it's loooong ago since I tried PS:T ...
Hsven't played it through, yet.

Posted By: DrunkenTofu

Re: Wishlist - 03/02/08 07:15 PM

Quote:

Uh, it's loooong ago since I tried PS:T ...
Hsven't played it through, yet.





Same here... the game's so long and I actually played the game mid-way twice: not sure if I've got the guts to go for yet another run. :P
Posted By: DrunkenTofu

Re: Wishlist - 21/02/08 07:27 AM

Hmmm btw, it'd be nice if you could swim and climb trees.
Posted By: Elliot_Kane

Re: Wishlist - 21/02/08 12:07 PM

Quote:

Hmmm btw, it'd be nice if you could swim and climb trees.




At the same time?!?
Posted By: AlrikFassbauer

Re: Wishlist - 21/02/08 07:30 PM

In Antwort auf:

In Antwort auf:

Hmmm btw, it'd be nice if you could swim and climb trees.




At the same time?!?




This could be by me !!!

Posted By: The Anti-Damian

Re: Wishlist - 27/04/08 01:09 AM

There isn't much left to be said, but I would like to see good open world over fancy graphics.
One gameplay feature I haven't seen mentioned that I would love to have is the ability to select Normal Attack on my Right Click for an archer: then I could lead a moving enemy and not miss.
I love the companion (if it wasn't a mouthy DK), the summoning dolls (help on-demand), the Battlefields (a change of scenery and merchants), the new weapons (air, ethereal, etc.), and Shaman magic.
If I could suggest a story for the third Divinity: when the player gets a little experience, the Divine One notices him and gives him the quest to hunt down Damian. Through many quests and a few D.O. appearances, he eventually tracks down Damian and in something like the Black Ring battle, finally kills him. Maybe the Demon of Lies from DD can come to his aid,and the D.O. becomes involved, too. And I hope they put in lots of small, hidden side quests like Cosmo the Cat.
I'd be first to pre-order that.
Posted By: Elliot_Kane

Re: Wishlist - 27/04/08 07:23 PM

 Originally Posted By: AlrikFassbauer
 Quote:
 Quote:
Hmmm btw, it'd be nice if you could swim and climb trees.


At the same time?!?


This could be by me !!!


I take that as a compliment! \:D

***

Anti-Damian, welcome to the forum \:\)
© 2020 Larian Studios forums