Hi everybody..You may find me a wussy but in the previous games you didn't really need to fight (I mean, you had to cast spells and all, but you just had to click the character or select next with your keyboard (i think)) and I was very found of that..If I want to play hack and slash and need to have an interest in learning combat keyboard moves, I'll play diablo II..but i don't..I hate it..


Can anybody tell me if the new system is going to be a bit like the old one or is it going to be hack and slash style (I'm talking about the combat mode only ofc.

Tyvm

The only official info about combat from Larian that I recall being mentioned is that Sektor (who at least at the time was working primarily on combat related stuff) said "In terms of clicking-rate, I personally feel that ED will be much easier on the hands than DD was". This was in the topic News from the front, after the discussion turned to a debate on combat styles (player twitch vs character stats, the evils of micromanagement, etc, and of course the click rate of various combat systems).

In DD you could hold the ctrl key down to automatically target the nearest opponent to your mouse cursor. I would assume in D2:ED, with no mouse cursor when not in the inventory window, that there would be some sort of automatic target selection (or, less likely, a lot of micromanagement).

I don't know why, but I was kinda imagining that the combat system would probably have been like the one seen in Fable 2?

I'm not gonna say anything I'm not supposed to... but don't worry about it

Well, according to this interview from this year's E3, it will be a real time based combat syestem, yet you will have the option to pause/select as well. Best of both worlds for me. Here you go-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_-fIB2vVc8

Yeah its a straight up real time combat.
No turn-based combat.

Sad, but nowadays no-one does turn-based anymore.

Hmmm....Kings Bounty and Drakensang were recent releases that I have played, and both turn based, although implemented differently.

As long as there's pause-and-select, real-time works for me (I call it pseudo-real-time). I love turn-based but only because it doesn't devolve into rapid click-fests. With pause, it's not something I have to worry about and that means the game will be that much more enjoyable.

I also prefer real-time over turn-based, though i have to say Drakensang did turn-based combat rather perfectly. not a fan of king's bounty type stuff.

No, Drakensang isn't turn-based.

It's just with pause turned on or off.

Imho *real* turn-based games play differently.

For me character can be real-time. Party in turn-based. (sp)

Have they said how big a part the creature has (also hirelings & summons).

IMHO, when the computer goes through the progression of dice rolls, skill checks, saves, etc, then there is an action performed, sequentially for each character and MOB, then starts over again, rather than all characters mindlessly bashing away at the same time, then that is turn-based. The fact that it pauses is irrelevant. This just makes it easier to coordinate each turn.

However, if you are referring to something like King's Bounty, which stops play for an action to be initiated by the player as truly turn-based, then I get what you are saying.

Interpretation, I guess.

I would guess the creature could play a big part in combat, depending on if and how you choose to use it. There are no hirelings / henchmen, but there are a variety of things you can summon (the 'Summon Ghost' spell is the only one I recall specifically).

Should have said; I dislike party-AI. That's why I prefer turn-based for a party.

My point was how do you control the creature & summons? If its designed that they should be used, but you have limited control (or even only call & dismiss) that's a concern. I consider them party members (game play, not story of course).

Is it viable to play a mage with out relying on pets?

Shea: are you saying a game isn't real time if the menus aren't affected by pauseing?

There have not been any details released on if or how you control the creature or summoned beings. Once the German version is out we may get some feedback on the viability of a pure mage playing without pets; there has been nothing official on any character builds.

Not sure I totally understand the question, but for sake of argument, menu interaction is of little consequence.

Tabletop PnP games, (D&D, and from what I understand, the Dark Eye), people roll dice to take a turn; move, attack, cast a spell, counter these things etc. Any one OR combinations of these things constitutes a turn. Then the next player player takes his turn, and so on, until that round of turns is complete. Then the process starts over again.

Computer adaptations of these games simulate these dice rolls and this is basically my point. Therefore, I interpret them as turn based. These are only examples (maybe not even good ones), as there are many types of games that implement turns differently. Like I said, I consider King's Bounty to also be turn based, as do I believe Civilization can be if you choose. Then there is pause and play...totally differnt thing, but can also be part of turn based games.

The argument could be made that most all PC games operate on some variation of this...that they are simply random happenings based on an intial input(mouse click or keystroke, reaching a correlated spot on a grid, etc), made possible and shown on the display through transparent calculations and algorithms.

All I was trying to say was that for me, Drakensang and, say, Baldur's Gate, NWN, etc., are turn based games that you can play in semi-real time (i.e. without pausing). The fact that you are not pausing, doesn't make those games less turn based. The games are just passively(computer AI) versus actively (player) controlled.

I don't play shooters, but I imagine there are plenty of those types of games that are the mindless point and click type games that every PC, NPC and enemy can be doing something at the exact same time, non-stop, unitl only one is left standing. Sure, there are transparent to player calculations going on, but once the action starts, there is no controlling it.

I'm probably way off base, but that's the way I see it.

Played NWN & demo's of Dark Eye & Baldur's Gate II (PC did you mean?); examples of real-time games please? Auto-pause was a pale shadow of turn-based, other 2 are real-time (or really bad/ unrepresentative demo's). Ironic that PnP rpgs are turn-based, but computer version so often switch to real-time without checking that it still works. Rule of thumb if 1 player can't control a party directly rather than by AI, it's not turn-based.

The games are just passively(computer AI) versus actively (player) controlled.
Did the Turing test get passed without being reported?

BG:DA I & II (console) are better (versus pc; solo-able versus bad party controls). However the necromancer with animate dead & shadow conjuration from the 2nd does illustrate my question on pet usage (AI with no user setting at all, similarly to in escort missions). If the interface & battle engine make pets non-viable, & other caster builds are non-viable due to shortage of alternative spells, that class suffers.

be aware that NWN is a single-player RPG. Your henchmen did not a party make. One of the reasons why NWN2 was so bad was that you could control your henchmen, but they still didn't make it a real party. For instance, you could have three characters in your party with 20 Charisma and all the persuasion skills, but if your main char didn't have it, you didn't have it. Drakensang did that much better. I don't see what autopause detracts from turn-based combat. It's still turn-based, auto-pause or no. Those three are all turn-based, yes. Games like Dungeon Siege, Demon Stone, Jade Empire, Two Worlds, Gothic games, oblivion, the witcher... are all real-time, IIRC. I still think the future of RPG games is real-time, even though Drakensang did it so well. Turn-based is a great way for PnP RPG's... but it's not necessary, and pretty static, in a PC game.

Agreed. Fighters don't take turns during combat. And non-turned-based does not equal "mindless".

LOL I meant mindless from a computer/AI standpoint...not person. Point, click, next target, rinse/repeat...not that there isn't human strategy involved.

Divinity 2 is classless. I'm not sure how you are able to play as a mage. Maybe by restricting yourself to a limited number of skills and limiting yourself in your choice of weapons?

Err...well, with each atttempted attack, the computer is still calculating your chance to get hit based on your armor, the enemies attack rating, and all these other factors right? So what's the difference if it happens fluidly and all at once rather than this awkward, halting, one-after-another method? Actually I'm sure there's more going on with turn-based, I just despise the way it jerks you out of the game (not being a PnP roleplayer, I can do without any semblance of dice-rolling in my computer games, thank you very much).



I'm not sure I like it being classless. Don't get me wrong, I love the open skill system that we've had since the first Divinity. But in the first game the classes had different propensities toward magic or fighting, and I liked that. I just hope I can at least customize my char to look like a mage so that when he becomes one he doesn't just look exactly like that same spiky blond knight we've seen in all the videos.

Wouldn't you pretty much have to restrict yourself to a limited number of skills and weapons in any case? Even though the game doesn't force you into any specific builds, practically you are going to have do some specialization, either due to playstyle preference or lack of stat/skill points.

I believe Swalnak wishes to know if magic can be used as the primary combat skill, without having to rely on summoned beings or your creature either for protection or to do the majority of the damage.


It has been mentioned that stats, skills and equipment can all influence each other, and there are secondary stats based on the primary ones. Even without class differences from the start, proficiency between magic and conventional combat should start changing as you develop your character. If body type is selectable or changeable that hasn't been mentioned yet, that I recall, but at least equipment-wise you should be able to make appropriate selections.

No. The "feel" is a totally different one. If you are sensitive enough, you can feel it as well.

You can sense it if developers had turn-based combat in mind and developed the game to meet this concept.

My prime example for this is still the NLT - this is he series of gameas against which I measure everything else.

The closest thing to this is still TOEE to me.


Pause is just ... a stopgap to me.

With Drakensang the pause is even worse that it is internally indeed a turn-based game. Many gamers I know have expressed their lack of understanding to just put a pause function to a game that's internally turn-based. They wanted *real* turn-based combat instead, like in the NLT.

In regards to the new game being less clicky and combat being easier than the first Div: I'm not buying it. In the first game you could just click once and your character would attack. No targeting, no dodging and moving around with the left hand while frantically scanning around for enemies on your periphery with the mouse. In principle I just fail to see how combat in an OTS game that requires both hands just to move and look around could be easier than an isometric one. Having a mouse cursor during battle is an incredible advantage that will be lost in the new game.

Third Person and Mouse-Cursor are not mutual exclusive. Ever played Age Of Conan? Or WoW? Or KOTOR? It's doable but horrible. I prefer the Non-Cursor Aproach like Gothic, Deus Ex or Thief.

I sure hope div 2 does not have some clunky, awkward MMO-Controls only to use a mousecursor.

Hope I don't come off as ignorant here - but what does NLT mean?
I also don't understand what the quarrel is with auto-pause... you can turn it off.. you can opt to not pause the game, and it still remains playable for the most part...

Personally, I hate combat systems like i.e. Final Fantasy had. I felt Drakensang had the best turn-based combat system I've seen - though I'll grant that without the spot-on animations, it would've been much less. It was too static though. Turn-based combat is necessary in PnP... but if you do it in PC games, you're basically just clinging to a primitive tradition. At least, that's how I see it. Like putting your water in your washer and washing it in there by hand instead of turning it on. Either you don't use the machine, or you use it. Eventually, you're gonna have to adapt.

NLT = Nordlandtrilogie, in the English speaking realms known as the "Realms Of Arcania" Trilogy.

By the way, I have played quite a lot of Age of Wonders, and HOMM and Civilization are also games with turn-based combat.

I sure hope div 2 does not have some clunky, awkward MMO-Controls only to use a mousecursor.

A mouse cursor is only present when it is required (when the inventory is open, etc), not during combat or when exploring.

Turn-based combat is necessary in PnP... but if you do it in PC games, you're basically just clinging to a primitive tradition.

Regarding my initial post (including creature/summons part); if you have a party, turn-based is necessary in order to have direct control rather than delegate some members to a party AI.
Why do I want direct control?

I could want to play a game, rather than watch it play itself.
I could also be better at making decisions than the AI. D2:ED isn't out yet, but games with party AI have been released. Unless giving commands fast is better than giving the right commands for the situation (real-time versus turn-based), experience indicates HI is better than AI.

Party AI can be 'good enough', though, in some circumstances. If you can command the party as a whole to attack a specific target, and then fine tune commands as required, then a real-time-with-pause type system can work fine. Melee warriors do not need a lot of babysitting if there are reasonable options or presets for target selection, etc, once their initial target is defeated. Archers can be a problem if they attack distant opponents and draw them into the fight, but that can be mitigated by how you approach a target, and the position you attack from. As long as there is only one mage in a party, you can select that character to control directly (I don't think I've played a game yet that had a good AI for magic use, or anywhere near the customization options to configure a reasonable behavior in most situations).

For larger parties (about 5 or more) or multiple mages / archers, I would prefer a turn based system. With predominantly melee parties, it is not that hard to implement an adequate AI.

So you're a member of that "action generation" which destroys games like Chess ?

Actions are calculated in turn-base mode (ala TDE rules), but moving is real-time. IMHO nothing wrong with it. I like turn-based strategies, but in RPGs I prefer this combat system to clear turn-base. Real-time tactical fights ala BG or Drakensang have stronger feeling as "epic and dangerous battles with monsters" - you try something but they also act.

As I wrote Drakensang and BG1/2 have the best combat system of all RPGs from last years. Its a strong point of many party-based RPGs.

I don't have the feeling as if real-time fights tacked with a Pause on "feel" like what I have learned as my personal turn-based optimum.

The NLT games, for example, rather felt like Chess. That's why I love them. It gives me much time to think. I can playn. I must use my brain, actually.

In BG1, it rather feels like ... well, in the NLT the characters are doing actions one after the other, but in BG1 vit felt like each group was acting as a group, rather, than like one after the other one.

I think that's called "phased combat", butI sometimes mix the terms.

I was quoting swordscythe. The rest of my post was actually pointing out the advantages of turn-based battle systems.

I don't understand all this arguing about turn-based and real-time gameplay. They both offer a different experience and none is "better" than the other. It all comes down to what you prefer. Turn-based gameplay usually involves more thinking and planning. Real-time gameplay requires faster thinking and better reflexes. Real-time with pause is sort of the middle ground, if you want action-packed scenes with multiple characters controlled by the user but still want it to require planning and thinking, it's a good gameplay choice.

Furthermore, at the risk of sounding offensive, I believe it is wrong to put people in groups like "the action generation" and say that it destroys old classics. People have the right the share their opinion, and there are definitely some without the patience to enjoy chess or other slower games with turn-based gameplay. It is their right to hope and wish for things to be real-time and more action packed. There is nothing wrong with not liking something, but there is something wrong with placing people in groups saying they destroy games like chess. But to be fair, calling turn-based gameplay a primitive tradition is also wrong. As long as there are people that enjoy things, there is a place for said things.

but I don't see what advantage turn-based offers over a real-time system with pause button and action queueing, even when you're partying up. You can think and strategize just as much.

I just don't see the immersion in seeing a whole party pop out of your main char at the beginning of a fight, after which they all just stand there dancing until it's their time to... make a feeble hit, and that giant lumbering beast manages to dodge it. That's the time for me to check my watch and delete that demo.

The only issue with it is that there are precious little non-turn-based party RPG's, so it's hard to compare. But in terms of single player, I think it's a done deal by now.

I also don't see how real-time combat makes a game a *insert negative connotation* action-RPG. Because the combat isn't boring? If that makes an RPG an action RPG, I'm game for those.

If you want to have fights as being part of the immersion, then no, then this doesn't make much sense to you.

In the NLT, for example, the gameplay - the prsented graphics and everything - where totally diufferent during fight siituation.

Which means that this game series distinguished between fight sitiations and non-fight situations.

The non-fight situations were the ones which were meant to be immersive,

whereas the fight situations wre considered as kind of a "step back and consder everything" kind of approach.

Combat in the NLT wasn't meant to be immersive at all. It was meant to be a purely tactical game in the tradition of Chess.

In "modern" games, especially in action games, fighting and combat is nothing but part of the gameplay. There actually is no "stepping back", but it all is one, continuous part.

For example Blizzard's Action-RPGS : There is no thing like stepping back, and considering your options. Except when you call the game's menu, which is kind of a realtime-with-pause kind of approach as well.

In action RPGs, which have been highly influencial on the whole RPG genre as such - it's even so that NO current RPG is without the phrase "action" within its description ! - , combat has so much become part of the gameplay, that the gameplay without the combat is nothing. Try to imagine Blizzard's games without combat. And what have you got ?

Plus, the "action" element is so much embedded into the gameplay that any kind of "steppinbg back" is not considered for / involved in the gameplay at all. It's ot about "looking at the scenery and consider your options", but instead "be prepared, rush in, and try your best".

I don't know how I could put this into words, but strategy in the waa I know it from the NLT isn't considered to be wanted in "modern" games, or otherwise it would be included.

To me, combat where I'm not forced to actually think about my game - and the options available for the party - like in Chess is boring.

To me, it's just like ... as if the game designers try hard to make people who do not wish to go into too detailed thinking enjoy a game.

oh dear, when I hear there will be no mouse present while fighting I can only conclude it will be this horrible WASD dodge/attack control system..If thats the case they lost a fan, but hey, I'll see it when i get it..

but still, DD is my favourite game partially because I love the controls, and I don't understand why fix something that isn't broken

If you love DD, you're bound to love D2, control system or not

From what I understand there is an auto-targeting system (presumably the closest opponent in front of your character), and you left click (by default) to attack. You can try to dodge magical attacks or arrows if you are far enough away to have enough reaction time, but the combat is not a micro-managed attack / dodge / block type system.

The change in control system was predominantly to be able to handle human movement / combat and dragon flight / combat effectively and in a similar a manner as possible (so people would not have to switch controls when changing form). Mouse clicking to move doesn't work very well for flight, though it can be ok if the camera angle is kept fairly high, and there are additional controls used to change height (with an over the shoulder view, you may not be able to see where you would need to click to move to a particular location, etc).

yes indeed I can see why they would choose different controls for that..but I'll just have to wait and see i suppose, although I'm leaning towards patching the german version with an english patch...but no, I'll try to be patient

You don't want to use a patch on a game meant for another country, if you successfully patch it, one of the bugs resulting will be it hanging trying to find a file for a cut scene.

As for hacking it, it was a God awful lot of work. I don't know if I'd have done it had I known how involved it get, there is so far only one npc that I messed up from hacking it. Fortunately he isn't important and I can leave him sleeping on the cliff.