Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Again, Battles are TOO long

Virion, I get what you said. I just have to rectify one point.

During the fight against the 18 goblins, I absolutely not struggle.
I was at the top of the wall, shooting arrows, spells and sometimes shoving the goblins who climb up.
It was a fight with absolutely no challenge. Fortunately I win it at the first try but it show how easy it was.
This is based on this particular fight that I feel bored with BG3 fights.
Cause there should be more fights like this (in inevitable in this kind of game) and so it's gonna be damn boring looking at 18 goblins slowly moving.
But maybe people are right, maybe AI improvement will resolve this problem... That said, I'm not convinced at all. ^^"

Kanishita
I completely agree.

BTW, I am the one who lost action from a companion cause I pass my turn forgotting their was 2 or 3 companion following actions ? I'm not clear but I hope osmeone understand me. So many times I decide to play Gale before Laezel then I press the "pass" button and so lost the turn of Laezel. For me it's a problem of design.
The same problem with the space-bar who allow to pass the dialogues AND choose the first sentence we can use. Bad design.


Denhonator, I could be satisfied with a good and well-designed turn-based fights but, for a game called BG3, RTwP should be at least an option.
As somebody said, if you wont respect the basics of a game, you don't take his name with +1.

Just call the game "Illithids : Shitstorm is coming" and do your stuff.

This isn't exactly the first time that core gameplay mechanics have changed in a game series as time went by. The fact that older games worked some way does not mean newer games have to work that way. The only argument for RTwP I've seen is "BG1 and BG2 had it". You could also say "a D&D 5e game should be turn based" or perhaps "Larian game should be turn based". But we can't really resolve it like this.

Would the game be better if it was RTwP instead of TB? Would the game be better if it had RTwP option? Does TB appear to be a fitting system for the game now that we've seen? These questions matter a lot more.

As for having the option, sure, in a perfect world we just have both. But the way they design encounters and pacing of the game is with turn based, tactical combat in mind. It would take heavy work to adjust everything to work well in RTwP, not to mention technical difficulties, considering the engine is made for turn based combat.

I'm also confident that with the experience the studio has and what we've seen so far, they can make good turn based gameplay.

Denohonator
I would like you give me some names of games +1 who didn't respect their predecessor.
To respect the basics didn't mean you can't evolve.
Look at Age of Mythology, it respects the basics, still it's innovating.

You said: "The only argument for RTwP I've seen is "BG1 and BG2 had it""

Sadly, you didn't read all of my messages.
I said why, in my opinion, RTwP will better fit BG3 than TB. My point was RTwP is more epic than TB. It's like comparing chess to.... I don't know, lasertag ? Sure Chess is fun but it doesn't have the thrill and the excitement of a good old lasertag when it moves and shoots everywhere.
So RTwP is well suited cause this is the essence of BG. The thrill of the fights, the eye of the tiger.
Secondly, and this is an major point, it's as if you take another game like... I don't know... CoD and just said "we're going to do CoD +1 but it's gonna be TB cause you know it's more strategic and more fun" Well, ok, maybe for you, maybe you're right, but this is not the basic's of the game you take the name of.
I could keep talking about the better feeling RTwP gives about fights but I just move forward to another point.

I don't think the "heavy work" argument is valid when talking about doing a good game. And I don't think it should be this hard to have both of the possibilities considering a lot of games did it.
I am EVER, EVER, EVER, deceived when devs just want to impose their point of view on gameplay when they could easily satisfy everybody.

A good example is "kingdow come deliverance". Never get why the guys decided than you could save only in beds. It was silly and made things so difficult for no valid reasons.
And here we are. Larian could just do both of TB and RTwP (which BTW will give them the opportunity to improve their skills, trying to dev something new for them).
But apparently it looks like they wont be doing it and why ? Because it would be hard to do ? No, just because they want to impose their point of view even if it's against the basics of the game they align themself with and against the will of a big part of their gamer...

True story.

PS: RTwP is way more "realistic" than TB too (which is, also, a big point).

Fallout is an example of a game series in which gameplay took a major turn after the first two games going from turn based isometric to realtime FPS. Some people didn't like the change, but look where the series is now.
Or let's say Final Fantasy games. They've gone from turn based top down to third person and then realtime. Also highly successful.

I admit I don't really know of game series that went from realtime to turn based, but it's really just a question of what the devs want to make and what the audience wants to play. Larian decided that turn based would be that more so than RTwP.

I would be more supportive of RTwP if right now, they were at the start of development and wanted to know what the audience wants. But they've already put the game in a turn based engine, designed core gameplay and encounters for turn based, etc. I think it would be foolish for them to go for RTwP at this point, when they could just make a great turn based game.

I don't see what you're trying to say with Kingdom Come: Deliverance. They made a design choice you don't agree with?

They definitely could do both TB and RTwP. But should they?

Also, you say they impose their point of view. They are making the game. They can do what they want. Also, while they are going against a core system in previous BG, at the same they are going for a core system of D&D 5e.

I admit I haven't read all your reasonings for RTwP, but what you're saying here is that it's more epic and exciting. That's a subjective experience. We can talk preferences all we want. What I responded to was that you think BG3 should have RTwP because it's BG, and that is the argument that I don't think is good. You merely told me why you would prefer RTwP. That doesn't defend that statement. I get that you prefer RTwP but that doesn't mean BG3 should have it because it's BG.

i don't think rtwp is either needed or inherently better by itself, it was useful in bg/nwn to hide autoattacks from player allowing me to focus on few spellcasters that actually required my attention, with all auto stuff happening in background
my problem with bg3 is that it feels like a dos game with core mechanics replaced with dnd rules - except dos core mechanics had huge emphasis on each of your own turns, and these 20 hours of lvl 4 dnd just mostly don't
there're ways to achieve what rtwp did while still remaining turn based: fixing ai getting stuck is a start, making ai not instantly target your wizard would help, getting to higher levels quicker, switching encounter design from "horde of simple enemies" to "few powerful enemies", expanding party from 4 to 6 - all would help turning focus away from "watching autoattacks". or just an option like in other turn based games without emphasis on each turn: skip or greatly speed up animation - this way gameplay shifts to more of a back-and-forth level

Years later I still dislike Fallout 3 with a passion.
And before someone tries to blame it on the poor writing, I'll stress that the gameplay is a big part of my distaste for it.


For the life of me I can't remember a single game that attempted to do both and where the result was more than mediocre on both fronts.
Well, maybe Kingmaker after they borrowed the heavy lifting done by a modder. Then again in KM I liked ONLY the turn-based mode (the game jsut never clicked for me the three times I tried to give it a chance when it was RtwP).

I tried it with PoE 2 for the first few hours and it was a complete slog in turn-based mode, not to mention their implementation was broken and they made some stats completely worthless in the process.

Dehonator
it's not cool to reduce my explanation with a "BG3 should have RTwP because it's BG" because it's clearly a way to reduce my thinking into a stubborn and undevelopped idea.
As I already said... it's, from my point of view, important to respect the game you're call yourself for.

You talked about Fallout 3 or FF.
How many gamers liked Falout 1 and 2 and actually liked Fallout 3 ? Same for FF even if it's a particular case for a lot of reasons.

The point is, yeah, as I said, Larian can do an amazing game, they could do a FPS-RTS-puzzle-candy-crush BG3 and it could be amazing and revolutionary and be selled at 300 millions copies.
It would still be kind of a treason for the BG-serie.

So yeah, BG3 should have RTwP because it's BG. But I have to say this sentence makes sense only if you have a bit of respect and consideration for the gamers you work for.

So, keep talking about the amazing TB, keep talking about evolving.
The point is BG was a RTwP game, doing otherwise is a bit of a treason.
I'm not against evolution, I'm not against TB. I'm against the true promess.

BG3, for now, isn't BG3, it's "Tadpole fucked my brain : an adventure in Faerun"

And you know what, I know I would really prefer this game than BG3. Because buying it, playing it, I wouldn't have any particular expectations. because it would be a whole new game, no one would have make me promises.

So yeah, if BG3 doesn't get RTwP, I will survive, I may even play it and enjoy it but in my mind, and in the mind of a lot of gamers who hoped for so long for a BG3, it won't be BG3. It will be "Illithids is the new pandemic in Faerun".




PS:
BG was playable in a kind of TB.

1: There are many points to be addressed at once so it got a bit confusing. But yes, that's pretty much what I mean. They are not a challenge to be killed if approached correctly but if on top of that i can get rid of all of them in a few turns it would make things even worse after me. I did the battle exactly in the same way as you lol.

That's why I'm willing to accept the length as it's the only thing that makes that battle stand out. Not sure if there's a good solution here. Maybe fewer but tougher enemies would actually be the way to go.

2: Normally you have to pass the turn on every character separately so you shouldn't be able to " bypass" someone's turn. Didn't have that problem.

3: And yeah I say that with a my heartbreaking but I think the game not being called BG3 would make things way easier for larian xD I'm not saying they can't do it, I'm saying we expect the game to give us the same feeling as original BG series while being better. It's hard to do even if half of the people working at Larian know BG. Cause who doesn't.

Great summary of what we're talking about when it comes to combat length.

One thing that comes to my mind when it comes to more powerful enemies I just feel they don't necessarily need to have their dmg scale over the roof. Normally different enemies require different approaches and spells. Right now it's pretty much the case even if Minotaurs do ..... what they do.
Minotaurs might be a great example of how not to design fights tbh.

I don't see a problem with one guy like this going after your mage, or a rogue going invisible and also running toward your spell caster. That's why you have your mage armor for in the end.

But two of them meant inevitable death for your mage.

Anyone ever play legacy of legaia? It was a turn based fantasy game for PlayStation. Each round your team would select their moves, and then once all selected, then the animations would play. I kind of hoped this game would take some form of that.

I completely agree about the duration of the battles. I did some tinkering with game files and increased the distance and area of some spells - to counter the massive size of the battlefields - and it felt more reasonable time-wise, but didn’t feel overpowered because the enemies had the same tools.

It also made those abilities a lot more fun to use.

I never felt that way at any point.

In Pathfinder Kingmaker tho fights either tend to end very quickly ( sometimes in 1 hit ) or if they take long you either just die or it becomes heal/ potion spam.

Summary of the Primary offenders causing combat to take so long:

1. Terrible AI delay. This is tied to enemies having far too many abilities/consumables compared to what they should have.

2. HP Bloat. Increasing enemy HP only serves to delay combat. Fix enemy stats to be what they should be under the rules of 5e and what your Shatter/Sleep be as effective as they're supposed to be. A GWF Fighter should be killing every goblin they hit.

3. Overabundance of Surfaces. This significantly slows down the ability of melee characters to get into combat.

Fix those three and combat gets a lot better very quickly.

You might as well remove most of the goblin fights. Without more hp, these fights would be too easy.
Trash mobs have no place in a turn-based game, where you fight every step of the way.
I recommend trying the turn-based mode for PoE. Trash fights go on mercilessly long.
You shouldn't be able to kill your opponent in one hit.

Been there, done that. They don't take any time at all, are you just not capable of understanding how AoE spells work or something? PoE, PKM w/ Turn Based mod installed, doesn't matter. Do combats take longer than RTwP? Yup, absolutely. No doubt about it.

Can we still have faster and more tactical combats in BG 3 with TB? Yes, by changing the above. Seriously, did *you* play PoE?? Did you do it as entirely martial classes or something? Did you play PKM w/ TB mod or the new alpha? Have you played tabletop/VTT 5e before with large fights?

I have to agree with too long combats, especially trash ones. I've read this entire thread since I started the goblin fight and am still in it. lol And most of the problem is the enemy ai "thinking" but even more annoying is doing nothing afterwards. I'm not technical but these long battles are tedious.

It's a very old thread.

Now that the AI use dash ans think faster, the speed of most combat is good to me.

My only issues when I have some is when my melee characters are shoved and have to dash a lot to come back and when there are too much ranged ennemies my characters have to run after.

Less ranged characters and more melee also make combats faster (and more interresting from a tactical point of view)

Hm, doesn't feel too long for me, to be honest. I actually enjoy the battles which take a few rounds more, like when you go on that nice rampage .

And since it's turn based I can even have a coffee break in between without having to hit some "pause" key.

I don't feel like the battles are too long.

I wonder if that is just me ...
It seems to me like combat in "old" places go a lot faster ... goblin camp, attack on druid Grove, spider queen, gnoll attack, githyanki patrol, etc. ... that all is pretty fast and fun.
But combat in Grymforge seemed a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT slower.

Wouldn't know. I'm on Stadia. grumble, grumble, muttering, kicking rocks, walking off, still grumbling