Larian Studios Forums Divinity 2 - Ego Draconis (English) Divinity 2 - Ego Draconis Wishlist

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 [color:"red"] and you can cross to the next level wherever you want. [/color] NOT some single point. it seems acceptable.

Ayway. It would be really bad if the dragon idea was gone <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/disagree.gif" alt="" /> and i think this idea will get rid of that (or perhaps theres a good solution).







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?

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 <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />. 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.

How about: Why talking that much about fighting? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

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. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

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. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

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.

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

[color:"orange"] 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[/color]

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.

[color:"orange"] 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[/color]

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 <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

@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.

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. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

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. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> 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. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />)

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

How do you do things in a computer game without pressing a few buttons? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

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.

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.

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?

[color:"orange"]pressing on the WASD you can sidestep around the target in a 360 angle[/color]

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.

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 <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />. 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. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

[color:"orange"]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.[/color]

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


[color:"orange"]So, I am afraid it will be a more active fighting system where you have to fight actually.[/color]

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.

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...

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

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. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />