Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Mega-threads and Guides The Turn-Based/Real Time with Pause topic

No, micromanagement doesn't necessarily mean "tactics". Like I said, it is just one of the things that differentiate RTWP from TB. Simple as that. And I got that you don't like micromanagement. That's fine.


Yes, you made this point with your archer and fighter example. I got that. I'm just surprised it took you this long to start making clear and agreeable arguments.

This factor, however, is in no way the single factor that makes a game "tactical". There are plenty of tactical decisions to be made elsewhere. If you let this one factor stop you from enjoying RTWP games as a whole, it's your loss. Big loss, seeing as there are some amazing RTWP games out there.

Well yes. But thats my point.
Thats why i consider TB more tactical, which if i recall correctly was your entire point of contention.

And im not saying thats the only factor, im also not saying RTWP is completley brainless or without any tactic or merit.
Im saying its less tactical.

But thats not even why i dislike it.
I dislike it because i dislike constant micromanagement.
It doesnt satisfy me, i dont feel like i turned around the fight, it makes me feel like im a teacher trying to get a bunch of screaming children loaded into a school bus.

I'll be honest, and I know this doesn't really matter, but I could not care less about multiplayer, especially in a game like this.

And I really hope that in terms of design, Larian doesn't prioritize mp in the slightest until well after they complete the bulk of the game's structure, not the least of which being... ahem, the combat system.

Sorry to bear bad news, but mp will be THE most important element of this game. And this is not only because that's what Larian wants (based on D:OS2) but also what WotC wants. Sp will be a secondary after-thought. You're supposed to play the game mp, but of course you can choose to play it sp if you want, though you'll have to accept that your sp experience will be subpar.

same here. i have both DOS games. although they have SP, i think their main focus was really the co-op. BG3 unfortunately will be the same fate as well. all of their interviews were mostly talking about co-op, tabletop, playing with friends. i know i'm possibly alone, i love most of my games Single Player. i do play multiplayer but the experience was mostly ruined by strangers. i don't really have the commitment or time to play competitively in a clan or something. but i understand that is their vision. why are the industry now mostly focusing on GaaS thingy?

Multiplayer means multiple sales for every player that buys a copy.

I don't remember if it was after D:OS1 or D:OS2's release, but at some point Swen made a statement saying he was surprised that Larian's internal data pointed towards a majority of the players playing the game in single player mode despite the game mostly being advertised as a coop game. I think the single player playerbase is significantly larger, but the multiplayer/coop playerbase is more vocal since coop mode for this kind of game is a fairly uncommon gimmick for an already somewhat niche genre.

You are most assuredly NOT alone in that reality.

Especially when you consider who will be the core audience for a game in this franchise. If Larian does in fact prioritize mp over campaign and the end product is not up to prior standards, they WILL lose sales. And if they believe otherwise, then they were the wrong company to give the license to.

man you people sure are trying to get youself mad arent you.
"its going to be MP focused and thats baad"

Come on. you are just looking for things to be upset about.
Was OS in anyway less fun when played alone?
I played it single player and in coop, both of them, imo coop is a better expirience but having controll of all characters obviously is a lot nicer.

ew


I suppose I'm surprised that they're surprised, though perhaps I shouldn't be as it seems that the entire traditionally SP games industry is having a bit of a love-affair with MP at the moment. I'd agree that the MP fans are by their very nature rather more outspoken; in saying that, I'm slightly loath to imply that the two groups are separate and never the twain shall meet, but it would be interesting to see a Venn diagram as I suspect that while it exists, the overlap isn't gigantic.

im pretty sure the multiplayer circle would be wholly submerged in the singleplayer circle.
Its not that easy to find people that have time to play, especialy more than one other person

I was and still am a huge BG fan.

In my view, multiplayer is great as long as you don't mess up single player.

Combat system for single player should in my view be:
-Real time with pause to conserve the feeling of playing a BG game. This mechanic is part of the essence of what makes BG BG.

Combat system for multiplayer should in my view be:
-(Like before): Real time with pause and then game admin can allow or not other players to pause.

-(New): What about paced real time with pause?
--Let's say a combat starts, game automatically pause for X amount of time (where X is configurable by the game admin). During this pause, each player could determine their next action. Once action determined, each player could either wait for X to get expired or press space bar to indicate they are ok with the choice they made (if both of them press space, then game resume before the end of X). This way, a strange pause initiated by one of the player will never occur since pause will be handled by game instead of player.
---We could also define Y resume amount time. This would determine how much time game will run before next pause. Maybe Y should be hardcoded by the game rather than configurable to make sure everybody feels a similar experience in combat (also, if Y is too long, then you are at risk of having a player do nothing until next pause which is undesirable)

-(Both): Game admin could either choose "realtime with pause" or "paced realtime with pause"

I don't care. At all. Okay, that's not quite true. I probably have a tiny, tiny bias in favor of RTWP, but BG3 could be an excellent game with either one.

BG2 is one of my 2 or 3 favorite games of all time. D:OS2 was an excellent game. The common thread in both games was the attention to detail in the game design that made the characters and the world feel alive.

So long as Larian doesn't pull a Dragon Age Inquisition with the combat mechanics I'm not too worried.

I'd rather have DA:I mechanics than D:OS2 mechanics. In fact, DA:I mechanics would be quite nice.

I'm curious what exactly you meant by "DA:I mechanics". Characters suddenly freezing and you have to switch to them, hit jump once to unfreeze them, then switch back to whomever you were previously controlling? Almost non-existent balance? Literally unkillable class (Knight *cough* Enchanter *cough*)? Characters moving about by themselves in combat like clueless geese, taking AoE damage unnecessarily, even though you told them to stay still? Characters refusing to use abilities on target because they keep trying to get closer to the target, even though they CAN'T get ANY closer? (Hard to describe this, it seems like a hitbox detection issue. Just try using Twin Fang on a Pride Demon from behind, you'll see.)

Or mechanics such as every impact from ability can proc elemental damage from Prismatic Greataxe, and each elemental proc can crit?

Or mechanics such as majority of enemies just basic attack? All enemies have is health. Enemy ability usage is ridiculously shallow. The "Walk Softly" trial advertises "enemies gain new traits and abilities..." - OF COURSE the mages gain Fade Cloak (who'd have thunk?). But nothing else. Archers gain Leaping Shot. Other than these, just more health. And MORE health. And more straight immunities to stuff. NOTHING ELSE.

I am sorry, but DA:I combat is a big pile of trash. Abysmal balance and stupid concepts aside, from the technical standpoint, the whole "combat" of that game doesn't even function properly most of the goddamn time. The character freezing issue would happen like every 5s in every fight holy **** I swear they never played their own game at all.

We are operating on levels of contrarianism not thought possibly by science

DA:I is pretty much the worst combination of MMO combat and RTWP. Its an MMO where you are constantly babysitting your party while the tactical camera flat out doesnt work properly , animations glitch around and IIRC you couldnt even disable party AI

Hmm. There was a great deal about Inquisition that I liked, but its mechanics isn't really one of them. Especially the likes of boss battles with the ME-style repeatedly regenerating shields whose only purpose was to prolong a combat encounter I was already not enjoying. But perhaps I'm just a habitual malcontent.

I meant only its RTwP combat system, not its rules. Also how a third person game would shift to isometric during combat. But I would note that things happening to prolong encounters (which did happen in the DA games) that I was already not enjoying is EXACTLY how I would describe my experience playing D:OS.

@Try2Handing, I played DA:I all the way through to its end, including all of its DLCs, and never once experienced any of the technical issues you are describing. As for its mechanics, yes, I can agree that some of its mechanics was not to my liking. I especially dislike cool-downs. But again, my point is not to defend DA:I but rather to say that however bad DA:I combat was D:OS combat was worse (for me).

I don't have the time to play too many games, and my personal tastes in the types of games I like are extremely narrow. As such the universe of games I have played is not that large. But within that universe, combat in D:OS was the worst of all.

@kanisatha
Yeah I didn't mean to be aggressive. The mention of "DA:I combat" just triggered me a bit. My point is that there are so many bad things about DA:I combat that it's hard (EDIT: no, more like impossible) to pick out something "decent' that you'd say you'd like to see in another game. It doesn't do anything unique or original.

So you basically mean being able to switch back and forth between the typical top-down view and 3rd person view? Then DA:O does it just fine. DA:O's "core system" is solid and works smoothly.

No problem. I appreciate your civility.

I myself preferred DA:O much more than DA:I, so maybe I should have made my point using DA:O as my example rather than DA:I.

I played both DAO and DAI. I prefer DAI graphics but i much prefer the combat in DAO. I played DAI in nightmare difficulty and that game was.. more like an action game than RPG (combat-wise). Most enemies have inflated HP. Played as Knight Enchanter, and soo many immolate spam don't even nudge much of enemies HP. The real damage comes from fire mine? But kinda like the Knight Enchanter playstyle. You are actually a mage tank.

Anyway, i would prefer that magic to be actually powerful in RPG and tactical games. It feels "meaningless" and "stupid" that 100 fireballs can barely kill a bandit (that's exaggeration but you get the idea).