|
|
|
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Id go a bit further and merge Solasta system with BG3. The Solasta team is in France I think, pretty close to Larian's offices  BG3 has got the graphics/cinematics and story while Solasta takes care of the mechanics and gameplay. If Larian handled the writing I'd agree to this. They should consult ZA/UM for writing. ;-) No clue what za/um is
Last edited by fallenj; 29/01/21 07:26 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
OP
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Id go a bit further and merge Solasta system with BG3. The Solasta team is in France I think, pretty close to Larian's offices BG3 has got the graphics/cinematics and story while Solasta takes care of the mechanics and gameplay. If Larian handled the writing I'd agree to this. They should consult ZA/UM for writing. ;-) No clue what za/um is Makers of Disco Elysium!
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Oh crap, i need to finish that game. an ya the writing is really good.
Last edited by fallenj; 29/01/21 03:59 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
|
Would love for the reaction system to be similar to Solasta.... along with just about everything else they did regarding rule implementations and such. <3
EDIT:
Here is the thing about a prompter asking if you want to take a reaction, and if so; what that reaction will be:
It *WONT* make things feel "slow" or stop the pace of the battle. Why not? Because it's on an enemy turn. It will just feel great because even though the enemy is doing things on their turn, suddenly stuff pauses and YOU get a say in the development of the enemy actions! It gives the player agency and control, and that wont feel like "the battle is slowing down" or anything like that, cause these things happen outside your turn.
I *TRULY* wish they implement something like that. I personally feel it's important for the game to have a proper reaction system. This would not need to be just like Solasta in anyway, but a good reflection of gameplay from DnD 5e. ************************** At the start of character's turn set reaction resource = 1 Attacks of opportunity>If enemy moves to provoke an attack of opportunity >Game checks for reaction resource = 1 >If conditions are met pause, let a |Attack|Pass| slide up from the bottom HUD >>If attack, set reaction resource = 0 >>If player selects pass, play resumes Ready Actions>Add a ready action command to the HUD >Player readies an action, resource stays at 1 >if enemy meets conditions for ready action pause, let a |Readied Action|Pass| slide up from the bottom HUD >>If player selects react, ready action is used, set reaction resource = 0, and play resumes >>If player selects pass, play resumes Reacting to attacks/spells (explained below why this is in italics)
>Enemy attack has a check for reaction resource = 1
>Game checks if character has spell/ability that can react
>If conditions are met pause, let a |React|Pass| slide up from the bottom HUD
>>If player selects react, they can choose from their reaction ability, set reaction resource = 0, and play resumes
>>If player selects pass, play resumesPlayers would have the option to use keyboard for |option 1|option 2| with |1|2| While this seems simple, problems can arise with magic such as counterspell. What should the reaction system do if two characters have counterspell available? So now does every spell need a check? >Character casts spell >game checks opposing party for counterspell >game checks characters for reaction resource = 1 >Player gets |Counter|Pass|? ... What should the game do if the player party has four characters who can use counterspell? >If character who can react (would need a variable name) > 1 >create micro-shared-turn >Player/AI selects character to use counterspell or pass ...it just gets complicated. ...should counterspell only be a ready action? ************************** I would definitely like to see proper Attacks of Opportunity and Ready Actions in the game, they are more obtainable and something we could have sooner in early access. Spell reactions are problematic, but proper Attacks of Opportunity and Ready Actions would have the building blocks to make a reaction system work. For problematic spells like counterspell I can understand why it could need to be changed from DnD 5e to only be a ready action, etc. (which is why spell reactions are in italics) For spells like Hellish Rebuke, Feather Fall, Absorb Elements, and Shield I would like to work like a proper reaction. (If a Minotaur shoves Shadowheart off a cliff I would like to react with Gale to cast Feather Fall). These four spells would need unique coding, but we're at four. I believe new statuses could be used to make them work in combat. Hellish RebukeCreate hidden status "Hellish Rebuke": (Character has reaction resource =1, spell slots <0, and Hellish Rebuke readied) > If character has status "hellish rebuke" and damaged by visible enemy within 60 feet, pause > |Hellish Rebuke|Pass| slides up from the bottom HUD >>If player selects Hellish Rebuke, prompt player to select spell slot, set reaction resource = 0, enemy is hit with Hellish Rebuke, and play resumes >>If player selects pass, play resumes I think it's important to let the player choose to take attacks of opportunity, use Hellish Rebuke, etc. Feather Fall would be similar with a falling status, Absorb Elements, and Shield would be similar. Especially with how many elements can go around in combat, I would like Absorb Elements to be in the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Nov 2020
|
Would love for the reaction system to be similar to Solasta.... along with just about everything else they did regarding rule implementations and such. <3
EDIT:
Here is the thing about a prompter asking if you want to take a reaction, and if so; what that reaction will be:
It *WONT* make things feel "slow" or stop the pace of the battle. Why not? Because it's on an enemy turn. It will just feel great because even though the enemy is doing things on their turn, suddenly stuff pauses and YOU get a say in the development of the enemy actions! It gives the player agency and control, and that wont feel like "the battle is slowing down" or anything like that, cause these things happen outside your turn.
I *TRULY* wish they implement something like that. I personally feel it's important for the game to have a proper reaction system. This would not need to be just like Solasta in anyway, but a good reflection of gameplay from DnD 5e. ************************** At the start of character's turn set reaction resource = 1 Attacks of opportunity>If enemy moves to provoke an attack of opportunity >Game checks for reaction resource = 1 >If conditions are met pause, let a |Attack|Pass| slide up from the bottom HUD >>If attack, set reaction resource = 0 >>If player selects pass, play resumes Ready Actions>Add a ready action command to the HUD >Player readies an action, resource stays at 1 >if enemy meets conditions for ready action pause, let a |Readied Action|Pass| slide up from the bottom HUD >>If player selects react, ready action is used, set reaction resource = 0, and play resumes >>If player selects pass, play resumes Reacting to attacks/spells (explained below why this is in italics)
>Enemy attack has a check for reaction resource = 1
>Game checks if character has spell/ability that can react
>If conditions are met pause, let a |React|Pass| slide up from the bottom HUD
>>If player selects react, they can choose from their reaction ability, set reaction resource = 0, and play resumes
>>If player selects pass, play resumesPlayers would have the option to use keyboard for |option 1|option 2| with |1|2| While this seems simple, problems can arise with magic such as counterspell. What should the reaction system do if two characters have counterspell available? So now does every spell need a check? >Character casts spell >game checks opposing party for counterspell >game checks characters for reaction resource = 1 >Player gets |Counter|Pass|? ... What should the game do if the player party has four characters who can use counterspell? >If character who can react (would need a variable name) > 1 >create micro-shared-turn >Player/AI selects character to use counterspell or pass ...it just gets complicated. ...should counterspell only be a ready action? ************************** I would definitely like to see proper Attacks of Opportunity and Ready Actions in the game, they are more obtainable and something we could have sooner in early access. Spell reactions are problematic, but proper Attacks of Opportunity and Ready Actions would have the building blocks to make a reaction system work. For problematic spells like counterspell I can understand why it could need to be changed from DnD 5e to only be a ready action, etc. (which is why spell reactions are in italics) For spells like Hellish Rebuke, Feather Fall, Absorb Elements, and Shield I would like to work like a proper reaction. (If a Minotaur shoves Shadowheart off a cliff I would like to react with Gale to cast Feather Fall). These four spells would need unique coding, but we're at four. I believe new statuses could be used to make them work in combat. Hellish RebukeCreate hidden status "Hellish Rebuke": (Character has reaction resource =1, spell slots <0, and Hellish Rebuke readied) > If character has status "hellish rebuke" and damaged by visible enemy within 60 feet, pause > |Hellish Rebuke|Pass| slides up from the bottom HUD >>If player selects Hellish Rebuke, prompt player to select spell slot, set reaction resource = 0, enemy is hit with Hellish Rebuke, and play resumes >>If player selects pass, play resumes I think it's important to let the player choose to take attacks of opportunity, use Hellish Rebuke, etc. Feather Fall would be similar with a falling status, Absorb Elements, and Shield would be similar. Especially with how many elements can go around in combat, I would like Absorb Elements to be in the game. This seems pretty much what others are asking for, a system that checks the availability of a reaction and then allows the player to choose to act. This would also help when counterspell and the monk drop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Apr 2020
|
Impressive, most impressive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
OP
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Would love for the reaction system to be similar to Solasta.... along with just about everything else they did regarding rule implementations and such. <3
EDIT:
Here is the thing about a prompter asking if you want to take a reaction, and if so; what that reaction will be:
It *WONT* make things feel "slow" or stop the pace of the battle. Why not? Because it's on an enemy turn. It will just feel great because even though the enemy is doing things on their turn, suddenly stuff pauses and YOU get a say in the development of the enemy actions! It gives the player agency and control, and that wont feel like "the battle is slowing down" or anything like that, cause these things happen outside your turn.
I *TRULY* wish they implement something like that. I personally feel it's important for the game to have a proper reaction system. This would not need to be just like Solasta in anyway, but a good reflection of gameplay from DnD 5e. ************************** At the start of character's turn set reaction resource = 1 Attacks of opportunity>If enemy moves to provoke an attack of opportunity >Game checks for reaction resource = 1 >If conditions are met pause, let a |Attack|Pass| slide up from the bottom HUD >>If attack, set reaction resource = 0 >>If player selects pass, play resumes Ready Actions>Add a ready action command to the HUD >Player readies an action, resource stays at 1 >if enemy meets conditions for ready action pause, let a |Readied Action|Pass| slide up from the bottom HUD >>If player selects react, ready action is used, set reaction resource = 0, and play resumes >>If player selects pass, play resumes Reacting to attacks/spells (explained below why this is in italics)
>Enemy attack has a check for reaction resource = 1
>Game checks if character has spell/ability that can react
>If conditions are met pause, let a |React|Pass| slide up from the bottom HUD
>>If player selects react, they can choose from their reaction ability, set reaction resource = 0, and play resumes
>>If player selects pass, play resumesPlayers would have the option to use keyboard for |option 1|option 2| with |1|2| While this seems simple, problems can arise with magic such as counterspell. What should the reaction system do if two characters have counterspell available? So now does every spell need a check? >Character casts spell >game checks opposing party for counterspell >game checks characters for reaction resource = 1 >Player gets |Counter|Pass|? ... What should the game do if the player party has four characters who can use counterspell? >If character who can react (would need a variable name) > 1 >create micro-shared-turn >Player/AI selects character to use counterspell or pass ...it just gets complicated. ...should counterspell only be a ready action? ************************** I would definitely like to see proper Attacks of Opportunity and Ready Actions in the game, they are more obtainable and something we could have sooner in early access. Spell reactions are problematic, but proper Attacks of Opportunity and Ready Actions would have the building blocks to make a reaction system work. For problematic spells like counterspell I can understand why it could need to be changed from DnD 5e to only be a ready action, etc. (which is why spell reactions are in italics) For spells like Hellish Rebuke, Feather Fall, Absorb Elements, and Shield I would like to work like a proper reaction. (If a Minotaur shoves Shadowheart off a cliff I would like to react with Gale to cast Feather Fall). These four spells would need unique coding, but we're at four. I believe new statuses could be used to make them work in combat. Hellish RebukeCreate hidden status "Hellish Rebuke": (Character has reaction resource =1, spell slots <0, and Hellish Rebuke readied) > If character has status "hellish rebuke" and damaged by visible enemy within 60 feet, pause > |Hellish Rebuke|Pass| slides up from the bottom HUD >>If player selects Hellish Rebuke, prompt player to select spell slot, set reaction resource = 0, enemy is hit with Hellish Rebuke, and play resumes >>If player selects pass, play resumes I think it's important to let the player choose to take attacks of opportunity, use Hellish Rebuke, etc. Feather Fall would be similar with a falling status, Absorb Elements, and Shield would be similar. Especially with how many elements can go around in combat, I would like Absorb Elements to be in the game. This seems pretty much what others are asking for, a system that checks the availability of a reaction and then allows the player to choose to act. This would also help when counterspell and the monk drop. EXACTLY! This would NOT feel like it's "slowing down the combat" because these things happen on an enemy's turn! That will only make it feel like YOU have more control, which you would have! That's a good thing! But of course, you should ideally be able to choose if you want that or just automatic responses!
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Exactly, giving players something to do on enemy turns would only make the game more engaging, not less. Similarly when you’re playing co-op and it’s not your turn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Anything like Solasta for the gameplay combat would be great.
But Larian has a way to do things...their way, and I doubt (hope im wrong...) that they would emulate a similar system from another game maker. Hopefully they are open minded to game design.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
|
But Larian has a way to do things...their way, and I doubt (hope im wrong...) that they would emulate a similar system from another game maker. I'm not disagreeing, but I'm just going to put it out there - if they aren't prepared to put their own way of doing things on hold, and instead emulate a different system, then they should never have agreed to make a 5e dungeons and dragons game, nor advertised to their fans that that was what they were making. Because that's a different system to their style, entirely, and having taken on a commitment to make that, and having advertised their intention to do so publicly, they now have a duty to deliver it... A duty which they are not meeting as of yet. The other game would not be something that they would be copying, in this sense - its existence just highlights how badly they are not adhering to their own undertaking and what they advertised to sell copies, at the moment. The other game has a faithful 5e implementation of reactions. Asking for BG3 to faithfully implement reactions and their function as well is not asking them to copy that game, it's just asking them to do as they themselves said they were going to; the other game is just demonstration that this works and works well, and doesn't need to be tinkered with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
|
But Larian has a way to do things...their way, and I doubt (hope im wrong...) that they would emulate a similar system from another game maker. I'm not disagreeing, but I'm just going to put it out there - if they aren't prepared to put their own way of doing things on hold, and instead emulate a different system, then they should never have agreed to make a 5e dungeons and dragons game, nor advertised to their fans that that was what they were making. Because that's a different system to their style, entirely, and having taken on a commitment to make that, and having advertised their intention to do so publicly, they now have a duty to deliver it... A duty which they are not meeting as of yet. The other game would not be something that they would be copying, in this sense - its existence just highlights how badly they are not adhering to their own undertaking and what they advertised to sell copies, at the moment. The other game has a faithful 5e implementation of reactions. Asking for BG3 to faithfully implement reactions and their function as well is not asking them to copy that game, it's just asking them to do as they themselves said they were going to; the other game is just demonstration that this works and works well, and doesn't need to be tinkered with. I agreed! They advertised the implantation of faithful 5e and that i why I brought into this. IF some of my other dnd group ask me to play 5e and then changed the core rule... then I won't play it but unfortunately... I have already paid money for this product. (I still have hope, but we'll shall see).
Last edited by Madoric; 05/02/21 05:13 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Apr 2020
|
And there have been trials for less than that... But I am confident they don't want that. I think there is still hope, and that we have to keep insisting and reporting our feedbacks.
I think it all depends on how they will treat us with Patch 4. For the moment, we are a lot of people here pointing at their lack of communication. So if they choose to ignore our feedbacks about D&D on top of that in Patch 4, more than 4 months after launch, well, I think it will mean they do not care at all, and it might trigger anger. But if they show some respect for us and D&D in this patch, well, it will be a very good indicator regarding the final release and our upcoming adventures with Larian.
Fingers crossed for patch 4.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Jan 2021
|
And there have been trials for less than that... But I am confident they don't want that. I think there is still hope, and that we have to keep insisting and reporting our feedbacks.
I think it all depends on how they will treat us with Patch 4. For the moment, we are a lot of people here pointing at their lack of communication. So if they choose to ignore our feedbacks about D&D on top of that in Patch 4, more than 4 months after launch, well, I think it will mean they do not care at all, and it might trigger anger. But if they show some respect for us and D&D in this patch, well, it will be a very good indicator regarding the final release and our upcoming adventures with Larian.
Fingers crossed for patch 4. Let's hope so. We even have a very good example of "trials for less" with Cyberpunk2077 and the hate train it caused (which did get blown out of proportions due to people hyping themselves up and imagening features that would make it in without these features being announced, but still). So far what I have seen, BG3 is popular for many people still because it is flashy and because of all the romances. Not really that it is a good fit within the Baldur's Gate saga, or because it is a good 5e DnD to CRPG translation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Oct 2020
|
And there have been trials for less than that... But I am confident they don't want that. I think there is still hope, and that we have to keep insisting and reporting our feedbacks.
I think it all depends on how they will treat us with Patch 4. For the moment, we are a lot of people here pointing at their lack of communication. So if they choose to ignore our feedbacks about D&D on top of that in Patch 4, more than 4 months after launch, well, I think it will mean they do not care at all, and it might trigger anger. But if they show some respect for us and D&D in this patch, well, it will be a very good indicator regarding the final release and our upcoming adventures with Larian.
Fingers crossed for patch 4. Let's hope so. We even have a very good example of "trials for less" with Cyberpunk2077 and the hate train it caused (which did get blown out of proportions due to people hyping themselves up and imagening features that would make it in without these features being announced, but still). So far what I have seen, BG3 is popular for many people still because it is flashy and because of all the romances. Not really that it is a good fit within the Baldur's Gate saga, or because it is a good 5e DnD to CRPG translation. Even if BG3 ends up more or less like it currently is mechanics & feature-wise (let's hope not! that would force me to play easy/story mode - and not because of the difficulty), it won't be nearly as big of a mismatch between what was advertised and the reality like C2077. That game was advertised as - beyond other things - "next generation open-world", they literally misadvertised the genre of the game... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
OP
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
But Larian has a way to do things...their way, and I doubt (hope im wrong...) that they would emulate a similar system from another game maker. I'm not disagreeing, but I'm just going to put it out there - if they aren't prepared to put their own way of doing things on hold, and instead emulate a different system, then they should never have agreed to make a 5e dungeons and dragons game, nor advertised to their fans that that was what they were making. Because that's a different system to their style, entirely, and having taken on a commitment to make that, and having advertised their intention to do so publicly, they now have a duty to deliver it... A duty which they are not meeting as of yet. The other game would not be something that they would be copying, in this sense - its existence just highlights how badly they are not adhering to their own undertaking and what they advertised to sell copies, at the moment. The other game has a faithful 5e implementation of reactions. Asking for BG3 to faithfully implement reactions and their function as well is not asking them to copy that game, it's just asking them to do as they themselves said they were going to; the other game is just demonstration that this works and works well, and doesn't need to be tinkered with. Yes exactly!
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
OP
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Does anyone with modding experience know if it's easy to implement changes to reactions, to get options as they come up during fights?
|
|
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
|
apprentice
Joined: Sep 2016
|
My suggestion on it, would to allow players (restricted to the characters their control for multiplayers ofc), to be able to navigate through each character to enable/disable reactions duration the enemy phase. Also adding spells like Shield to reaction window, or even put allow reactions spells/skill there, instead of having them to cast ahead of time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
|
My suggestion on it, would to allow players (restricted to the characters their control for multiplayers ofc), to be able to navigate through each character to enable/disable reactions duration the enemy phase. Also adding spells like Shield to reaction window, or even put allow reactions spells/skill there, instead of having them to cast ahead of time. I don't really understand what you mean. Well... I understand, but I don't see how it would work in game. When 10 goblins are playing, will you have to focus and have 2 sec to click at the right moment with the right character ? What about spells you can cast on an ally ? (i.e feather fall) Don't think it would work. I really don't see any other solution that Solasta's one to create a proper reaction system... But I'm not sure it would suit BG3. Maybe a popup for 5 seconds would be better and more dynamic ? The actual system is completely uninterresting and something has to be done but anyone has suggestions in mind ? We already talked about this before the EA but I have to admit that my memory is not the best^^
Last edited by Maximuuus; 11/03/21 10:04 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Jan 2021
|
So we are relying on mod now? And to think of this is just EA, shame...
STILL WAITING FOR NEW COMPANION AND CUSTOM PARTY WITHOUT MULTIPLAYER.
BECAUSE WHY FUCKING NOT???
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
OP
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Hopefully we wont have to rely on mods, I just wondered if it would be easy to implement things with mods, since *maybe* the reaction system (among other things) wont be implemented in a way that actually allows for full control over your choices, which would be a damn shame to anyone who wants to decide things for themselves rather than relying on a flimsy automatic function.
|
|
|
|
|
