Larian Studios
Posted By: LookingforBG Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 06:10 PM
Large battles are ridiculous. I literally fell asleep in the middle of a battle while waiting for enemy actions. This turn-based business and AI is quite frankly atrocious. Like someone said in another thread, small battles are okay in this but as soon as you start to have 7+ enemies the battles just become way too long. If you have the ability and sometimes necessity to save in the middle of battle, you know your battles are too long. Simple. It's pretty bad when the battles are so long that you are literally falling asleep. The large battles are a distraction from the story progression. Make live action an option!
Posted By: Thrythlind Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 06:11 PM
I have not felt this at all.
Posted By: Tuco Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 06:15 PM
Complaints about the overall pacing of a battle are a thing that can have its merits, according to what your point of content exactly is.
Complaints that "the AI takes too long to think its moves" on the other hand are completely pointless.

It should go without saying that it's a work in progress and they'll do their best to make it better. It's like interrupting someone who's trying to cook your dinner complaining that his stew needs more time on the stove.
Posted By: LookingforBG Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 06:17 PM
This is a feedback forum right? This is my feedback. The derivative elements of DOS are badly integrated. This is my opinion, deal with it
Posted By: Tuco Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 06:18 PM
Originally Posted by LookingforBG
This is a feedback forum right? This is my feedback. The derivative elements of DOS are badly integrated. This is my opinion, deal with it

Useful feedback is about things that are useful to point because it's not implicit they will be addressed.

"THERE'S NO ACT 2 IN THE GAME YET!" is not useful feedback.
Posted By: LookingforBG Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 06:19 PM
Who determines the usefulness of feedback, you? I think not
Posted By: Tuco Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 06:19 PM
Originally Posted by LookingforBG
Who determines the usefulness of feedback, you? I think not

It shoudl be common sense, but I know it's asking too much.
Posted By: LookingforBG Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 06:20 PM
You have your opinion, I have mine. This can happen smile If you don't like it you can post in another thread your opinion.
Posted By: LookingforBG Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 06:22 PM
Its pretty sad that someone can't speak their mind anymore without criticism from a forum lord. People can have different opinions, and my feedback is stated as it is. The battles with more than 7 or 8 enemies, are too long. The End.
Posted By: Orbax Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 06:22 PM
Originally Posted by LookingforBG
This is a feedback forum right? This is my feedback. The derivative elements of DOS are badly integrated. This is my opinion, deal with it



and just to check, your solve for it was live combat? It is really hard to imagine them doing that because of their ai. Its subjective but I feel like when its their turn a list a mile long of checks starts going down "Are there explosive materials in the area? Are you in range? are the PCs in range of the explosion? Are you? Are other explosives in range of the explosion? are you in the range of that explosion?" and its doing this environment checkdown and I dont even know if its possible live play. Ive seen them do a few things where I was just like wow...how did you think of that. If environment got de-prioritized for combat I think itd go a *lot* faster.
Posted By: LookingforBG Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 06:28 PM
Originally Posted by Orbax
Originally Posted by LookingforBG
This is a feedback forum right? This is my feedback. The derivative elements of DOS are badly integrated. This is my opinion, deal with it



and just to check, your solve for it was live combat? It is really hard to imagine them doing that because of their ai. Its subjective but I feel like when its their turn a list a mile long of checks starts going down "Are there explosive materials in the area? Are you in range? are the PCs in range of the explosion? Are you? Are other explosives in range of the explosion? are you in the range of that explosion?" and its doing this environment checkdown and I dont even know if its possible live play. Ive seen them do a few things where I was just like wow...how did you think of that. If environment got de-prioritized for combat I think itd go a *lot* faster.


Well yeah, the game is currently structured around the turn-based environment that Larian basically decided from the start they were going to do. The AI is what it is and I dont need to state the obvious, but the number of checks you refer to are what clog the battles up in my opinion. The live play suggestion is mostly a beckoning to the more traditional BG games where you could commit your actions while paused during battle and they would be executed simultaneously. However, with the current battle mechanic, all the pathfinding, the environment effects, the rolls, this sort of computation is out of bounds currently. We are essentially stuck with the turn based mess, which again is a reference to my initial post. But essentially I agree with portions of your reply, the environment being de-prioritized would be a start in the right direction.
Posted By: Tuco Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 06:29 PM
Originally Posted by LookingforBG
Its pretty sad that someone can't speak their mind anymore without criticism from a forum lord. People can have different opinions, and my feedback is stated as it is. The battles with more than 7 or 8 enemies, are too long. The End.

I have absolutely no objections about you feeling that the battles taking too long.
I just pointed out to you that complaining that the AI is slow is pointless since they will OBVIOUSLY make it faster as soon as they will figure out how.
You simply decided to take offense on in and protest, instead of taking in the friendly advice and metabolizing it.
Posted By: LookingforBG Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 06:31 PM
Originally Posted by Tuco
Complaints about the overall pacing of a battle are a thing that can have its merits, according to what your point of content exactly is.
Complaints that "the AI takes too long to think its moves" on the other hand are completely pointless.

It should go without saying that it's a work in progress and they'll do their best to make it better. It's like interrupting someone who's trying to cook your dinner complaining that his stew needs more time on the stove.



I don't agree that it is pointless to complain about AI being slow. I don't take offense, I just disagree with your statement.
Posted By: Nyanko Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 06:32 PM
Originally Posted by Tuco
Complaints about the overall pacing of a battle are a thing that can have its merits, according to what your point of content exactly is.
Complaints that "the AI takes too long to think its moves" on the other hand are completely pointless.

It should go without saying that it's a work in progress and they'll do their best to make it better. It's like interrupting someone who's trying to cook your dinner complaining that his stew needs more time on the stove.


This is not pointless at all. If the AI is so slow but they still put it like it is in their EA, it means they wanted to have the feedback from players. And most of us think there is a big problem with combat at the moment, especially encounters with lots of participants. It's something which needs to be addressed before release.

We need the combat to be at least as smooth and engaging as DOS 2.
Posted By: Tuco Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 06:34 PM
Originally Posted by Nyanko

This is not pointless at all. If the AI is so slow but they still put it like it is in their EA, it means they wanted to have the feedback from players.

Yeah, about what moves it does, not how long it takes.
Posted By: Orbax Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 06:36 PM
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Nyanko

This is not pointless at all. If the AI is so slow but they still put it like it is in their EA, it means they wanted to have the feedback from players.

Yeah, about what moves it does, not how long it takes.


What are you basing that on?
Posted By: Tuco Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 06:38 PM
Originally Posted by Orbax
What are you basing that on?

Because if I show you the pencil draft for an illustration I'm planning to make and ask your feedback, I'd like to hear what you think about the lines, not about the colors.
You know, the thing I didn't even begin to address yet.


Posted By: Nyanko Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 06:41 PM
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Orbax
What are you basing that on?

Because if I show you the pencil draft for an illustration I'm planning to make and ask your feedback, I'd like to hear what you think about the lines, not about the colors.
You know, the thing I didn't even begin to address yet.




Sorry no. If you didn't want people who you are asking what they think of your painting to comment on colors, you would show them a grayscale version of your work.

There is no line anywhere saying Larian doesn't want us to comment on combat. Because as a matter of fact, they do.
Posted By: Hachina Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 06:42 PM
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by LookingforBG
This is a feedback forum right? This is my feedback. The derivative elements of DOS are badly integrated. This is my opinion, deal with it

Useful feedback is about things that are useful to point because it's not implicit they will be addressed.

"THERE'S NO ACT 2 IN THE GAME YET!" is not useful feedback.


Tuco blaming people for thinking differently, again. huhu.
Posted By: Stabbey Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 06:42 PM
Originally Posted by LookingforBG

Well yeah, the game is currently structured around the turn-based environment that Larian basically decided from the start they were going to do.


Correction. It is structured around the mechanics of D&D 5th edition which WotC wants them to use.

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/763351879

See 29:24 for the start of RtwP discussion.

• 30:03: "There's much more tactical depth that we are able to put in there, that we wouldn't have been able to do in real-time-with-pause. Which, ends up, if you want to have that tactial depth [in Real-Time-with-Pause], being pausing continuously."
• 30:30: "Actions, bonus actions, movement, manipulation of your actions, manipulation of your bonus actions, getting an extra action - all these things are lost when you make it real time."
Posted By: Tuco Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 06:43 PM
Originally Posted by Nyanko

Sorry no. If you didn't want people who you are asking what they think of your painting to comment on colors, you would show them a grayscale version of your work.

That's... what a pencil draft is?
In fact, even less than it.
...Am I being trolled, by any chance?

Quote
There is no line anywhere saying Larian doesn't want us to comment on combat. Because as a matter of fact, they do.

At no point I ever said Larian "doesn't want us to comment on combat". I'm commenting on combat all the time myself.
What the hell are you even blabbing about?

Originally Posted by Hachina

Tuco blaming people for thinking differently, again. huhu.


"Thinking differently".

Posted By: Crikk Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 06:43 PM
I haven't had the issue of falling asleep during a large battle... When I took on the entire goblin camp, yes, it did take a while for 18 enemies to move and attack and it was a little dull just waiting for my turn, I'll grant you that, but...

I don't think this is entirely Larian's fault. This is just D&D.

As a DM, I had a tabletop game where I pitted my players (3 players + 1 NPC all at level 6) against a horde of goblins. They had out-levelled (the basic 1/4 CR) goblins, but I wanted them to fight goblins for story reasons, so I just threw a ton of them at the players. And yeah... they almost fell asleep as I moved mins and rolled my d20 for 30 goblins. They did not find it fun at all and I'm never going to do that to them again. Lesson learned.

As for real-time... I don't see how it would work and stay with the 5e rules. You have movement limits, you have actions, bonus actions and reactions. I played BG1+2, Icewind Dale, more recently: Pathfinder - Kingmaker etc. and I was never, ever a fan of the real-time with pause. It may appeal to some players because it's faster-paced, but it isn't D&D (as far as I'm concerned). The number of times I've laid down a fireball in RTwP games only to have it explode with nobody in the blast area because they'd all moved out of it and were now killing the wizard in melee... it's a bad fit with D&D rules. I think if you had RTwP in BG3, you'd just get overwhelmed and die constantly.

A better suggestion would be to have a game option slider to accelerate enemy moves/animations in combat. Find combat too slow? Change the slider from 100% to 200% and just watch them fly around the map until your turn. And, it may seem flippant, but the other option is just to try and avoid large battles with more than 4 or 5 enemies. Not always possible, sure, but one way to deal with it. (And if you do need to have a large battle, use AoE stuff - grenades like Alchemist's Fire + Grease spell so that you whittle down the numbers quickly.)
Posted By: Tylm Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 06:47 PM
Play groups of nearby enemies at the same time? Personally I didn't find the fights too long, but I really like turn-based games so I'm not objective ^^
Posted By: clavis Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 06:49 PM
Originally Posted by LookingforBG
This is a feedback forum right? This is my feedback. The derivative elements of DOS are badly integrated. This is my opinion, deal with it


being the rude condescending person I am, stop getting butthurt, when someone jackass states his opinion poorly, or an alternate opinion. Adult up, open your mind, find middle ground then move to debate.

Yes there is a problem with the length of combat when it comes to 7+ people, making it live action is not an option, or if it is one that will lead to more posts such as this. same with Real time with pause.
Turn based vs live vs rtwp isn't the issue, and why the combat is taking so long. One it's EA, Ai scripts have issues, not always the same fight that takes 30 minutes one time can take 10 minutes the next. Its the script going derpy derpy during some combats and not others. Seeing as how it's EA it will (it better) change, one of those things that is slowling combat. Is the health of enemies, the high AC, and burst damage every enemy seems to have at their fingertips, and all of them having heals, AC boosts etc. That is a problem with balance as well. Which I can see, Larian put alot into everything in EA to test out their ideas, and wants, or they are stupid, or they're not used to 5e balance, what ever. When balance is found with their ideas, and our feedback combat will be shorter. There will be less script clutter for the AI to try and figure out, which leads to streamlined combat.

It is EA alot of ideas are in it, completely wiping out anything such as turn based combat, is a pain. Stop with the extremes, or don't run when your first learning to walk. It's what we are doing, learning to walk, so stop running!
Posted By: SorcererVictor Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 06:52 PM
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by LookingforBG

Well yeah, the game is currently structured around the turn-based environment that Larian basically decided from the start they were going to do.


Correction. It is structured around the mechanics of D&D 5th edition which WotC wants them to use.

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/763351879

See 29:24 for the start of RtwP discussion.

• 30:03: "There's much more tactical depth that we are able to put in there, that we wouldn't have been able to do in real-time-with-pause. Which, ends up, if you want to have that tactial depth [in Real-Time-with-Pause], being pausing continuously."
• 30:30: "Actions, bonus actions, movement, manipulation of your actions, manipulation of your bonus actions, getting an extra action - all these things are lost when you make it real time."


But why not implement concurrent turns like ToEE(a TB game) did? So enemies act faster? Why not END the hp bloat? Making goblins with 50 hp and spiders with 138 hp? https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=703529#Post703529
Posted By: Orbax Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 06:52 PM
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Orbax
What are you basing that on?

Because if I show you the pencil draft for an illustration I'm planning to make and ask your feedback, I'd like to hear what you think about the lines, not about the colors.
You know, the thing I didn't even begin to address yet.




So, to be clear: You are basing your statement that the developers of an early access video game do not want to hear all feedback on their game in the feedback forums is because if you, personally, were drawing a picture you would want to hear feedback on the contouring of the draft instead of the potential color palette you had chosen during the creation of the hypothetical picture? I just want to make sure Im connecting the dots correctly on this - also dont comment on how the dots are arranged, I only want to hear about the lines (yeah yeah, when you connect the dots it draws a phallus, I DONT WANT FEEDBACK ON THAT PART)
Posted By: Tuco Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 07:02 PM
Originally Posted by Orbax
.

Well, you surely are trying to drag this around a lot.

I'm simply saying that asking for things that are CONFIRMED as already on their way is a waste of everyone's time.
Not that this has ever stopped a lot of people in this section, on the other hand:

"I want an option to hide helmets" (as if there was ever the risk they wouldn't include it? They even already said it's coming).
"Please, Larian, include paladins and bards in the final game" (once again, confirmed).
"I want less bugs and for the game to crash less often" (no shit?)
"I want a quicker AI that hangs up less frequently" (No Shit? 2: The Big Revenge).
"I hope that the final game will include Act 2 and 3" (Surprised Pikachu).


I didn't even imagine it would turn into a controversial statement.


Posted By: Orbax Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 07:08 PM
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Orbax
.

Well, you surely are trying to drag this around a lot.



There is a difference between explicit statements made by the studio regarding impending changes and you speaking for the developers by saying "they dont want to hear about x" and then having 0 supporting evidence for what the studio is looking for in that regard. Yeah, its ridiculous that half this stuff gets posted because its an eyeroll and "they already said..." and I could link to the article. This particular issue, I have never read or heard anything from them on. Trying to stuff suggestions on their behalf with no reasoning other than you can imagine situations where if you were doing something you would want particular feedback regarding a singular aspect is just asinine. This isn't about dragging it around, its about making informed statements so informed suggestions and decisions can be made. Going around telling people your own feelings on the subject masqueraded as a statement by the developing studio is antithetical to the purpose of these kinds of discussions.
Posted By: clavis Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 07:14 PM
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Orbax
.

Well, you surely are trying to drag this around a lot.

I'm simply saying that asking for things that are COFIRMED as already their way is a waste of everyone's time.
Not that this has ever stopped a lot of people in this section, on the other hand:

"I want an option to hide helmets" (as if there was ever the risk they wouldn't include it? They even already said it's coming).
"Please, larian, include paladins and bards in the final game" (once again, confirmed).
"I want less bugs and for the game to crash less often" (no shit?)
"I want a quicker AI that hangs up less frequently" (No Shit? 2: The Big Revenge).
"I hope that the final game will include Act 2 and 3" (Surprised Pikachu).


I didn't even imagine it would turn into a controversial statement.




had me rolling die comes up 20 on persusion. lol
Posted By: clavis Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 07:22 PM
Originally Posted by Orbax
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Orbax
.

Well, you surely are trying to drag this around a lot.



There is a difference between explicit statements made by the studio regarding impending changes and you speaking for the developers by saying "they dont want to hear about x" and then having 0 supporting evidence for what the studio is looking for in that regard. Yeah, its ridiculous that half this stuff gets posted because its an eyeroll and "they already said..." and I could link to the article. This particular issue, I have never read or heard anything from them on. Trying to stuff suggestions on their behalf with no reasoning other than you can imagine situations where if you were doing something you would want particular feedback regarding a singular aspect is just asinine. This isn't about dragging it around, its about making informed statements so informed suggestions and decisions can be made. Going around telling people your own feelings on the subject masqueraded as a statement by the developing studio is antithetical to the purpose of these kinds of discussions.


I think alot of threads, and arguements are stemming form the informed, vs. the uninformed. or those that generally just hating on the game for whatever reason. Which is why in so many posts I'm coming across as condescending, rambling, or people are feeling that things are being dragged around. To much assumption, conjecture, opinions based on partial information, or just blind ignorance, or blind belief that one as in this case (not that OP is blinded could be they are) one mechanic is superior to another.

When others look at it unbiasedly and try to gather data to make an informed decision the uninformed are going to either A) ignore it B) try to counter it or C) lash out. Wether or not it's ethical, or unethical isn't part of the equation for most. It's human nature, more importantly it's the nature of the beast. arguing schematics isn't going to change someones opinion who doesn't want that opinion changed.

You both can argue the points and validity, but take into consideration human nature, that isn't going to change over night. (which it would, would be helpful.)

I'm a ramblin maaaan!
Posted By: Orbax Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 07:34 PM
Originally Posted by clavis
Originally Posted by Orbax
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Orbax
.

Well, you surely are trying to drag this around a lot.



There is a difference between explicit statements made by the studio regarding impending changes and you speaking for the developers by saying "they dont want to hear about x" and then having 0 supporting evidence for what the studio is looking for in that regard. Yeah, its ridiculous that half this stuff gets posted because its an eyeroll and "they already said..." and I could link to the article. This particular issue, I have never read or heard anything from them on. Trying to stuff suggestions on their behalf with no reasoning other than you can imagine situations where if you were doing something you would want particular feedback regarding a singular aspect is just asinine. This isn't about dragging it around, its about making informed statements so informed suggestions and decisions can be made. Going around telling people your own feelings on the subject masqueraded as a statement by the developing studio is antithetical to the purpose of these kinds of discussions.


I think alot of threads, and arguements are stemming form the informed, vs. the uninformed. or those that generally just hating on the game for whatever reason. Which is why in so many posts I'm coming across as condescending, rambling, or people are feeling that things are being dragged around. To much assumption, conjecture, opinions based on partial information, or just blind ignorance, or blind belief that one as in this case (not that OP is blinded could be they are) one mechanic is superior to another.

When others look at it unbiasedly and try to gather data to make an informed decision the uninformed are going to either A) ignore it B) try to counter it or C) lash out. Wether or not it's ethical, or unethical isn't part of the equation for most. It's human nature, more importantly it's the nature of the beast. arguing schematics isn't going to change someones opinion who doesn't want that opinion changed.

You both can argue the points and validity, but take into consideration human nature, that isn't going to change over night. (which it would, would be helpful.)

I'm a ramblin maaaan!



You're right...I shouldn't judge the colors of the quantum theorized drawing :\
Posted By: clavis Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 07:38 PM
Originally Posted by Orbax
Originally Posted by clavis
Originally Posted by Orbax
[quote=Tuco][quote=Orbax].


I'm a ramblin maaaan!



You're right...I shouldn't judge the colors of the quantum theorized drawing :\



no you shouldn't. and what thread am I in....
Posted By: Tuco Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 08:08 PM
Originally Posted by clavis

no you shouldn't. and what thread am I in....

A redundancy parade.
Up next: PLEASE DEVS, MAKE LOADING TIMES SHORTER.

Followed by the bitter defense "Maybe they didn't know we wanted them!".
After all they never promised explicitly to work on it. Speaking of asinine.
Posted By: Orbax Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 08:13 PM
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by clavis

no you shouldn't. and what thread am I in....

A redundancy parade.
Up next: PLEASE DEVS, MAKE LOADING TIMES SHORTER.

Followed by the bitter defense "Maybe they didn't know we wanted them!".
After all they never promised explicitly to work on it. Speaking of asinine.


False equivalency between battle - a complex scenario of dozens, if not hundreds of variables that are constantly changing for a variety of reasons - and loading - a static function of allocating memory, rendering graphics, and adjusting the elements of the area to the last known positions and dispositions based on the flags stored as metadata in the save file where the primary resource drain has been the complete dump and reload of memory allocation based on the the way they en masse handle the module youre in, but alright. Performance is an ongoing objective process in technology but AI priority calculation and number of environmental variables introduced and precedence ordered is a set of logic rules that are a "best guess" to efficacy, time, and enjoyment and are highly subjective by nature. But sure. Youre right. They are exactly the same and should be treated as such.
Posted By: LookingforBG Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 08:14 PM
Originally Posted by Nyanko
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Orbax
What are you basing that on?

Because if I show you the pencil draft for an illustration I'm planning to make and ask your feedback, I'd like to hear what you think about the lines, not about the colors.
You know, the thing I didn't even begin to address yet.




Sorry no. If you didn't want people who you are asking what they think of your painting to comment on colors, you would show them a grayscale version of your work.

There is no line anywhere saying Larian doesn't want us to comment on combat. Because as a matter of fact, they do.


+1
Posted By: Tuco Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 08:24 PM
Originally Posted by Orbax

False equivalency between battle - a complex scenario of dozens, if not hundreds of variables that are constantly changing for a variety of reasons - and loading

Except no one ever said to NOT comment on battles. Nor claimed the devs didn't want us to.
I commented on the speed of the AI which is EXACTLY comparable to the speed of loading times, as both unintended technical issues.

You're either guilty of poor reading comprehension OR deliberately trying to waste my time with bogus rebuttals at this point.


Posted By: clavis Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 08:28 PM
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Orbax

False equivalency between battle - a complex scenario of dozens, if not hundreds of variables that are constantly changing for a variety of reasons - and loading

Except no one ever said to NOT comment on battles. Nor claimed the devs didn't want us to.
I commented on the speed of the AI which is EXACTLY comparable to the speed of loading times, as both unintended technical issues.

You're either guilty of poor reading comprehension OR deliberately trying to waste my time with bogus rebuttals at this point.




honestly he lost me when he started speaking techenesse.... would you restate in engrish please?
Posted By: Tuco Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 08:29 PM
Originally Posted by clavis
honestly he lost me when he started speaking techenesse.... would you restate in engrish please?

The "long story short" is that they can't tell apart an unintended technical issue from a deliberate design choice.

Even with DOS 2 the AI got exponentially faster the closer we got to the release (and then better and faster again with subsequent patches), but we are trying to pretend this is needs to be strongly suggested otherwise the devs couldn't figure out it's a welcomed improvement.
Posted By: Orbax Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 08:32 PM
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Orbax

False equivalency between battle - a complex scenario of dozens, if not hundreds of variables that are constantly changing for a variety of reasons - and loading

Except no one ever said to NOT comment on battles.
I commented on the speed of the AI which is EXACTLY comparable to the speed of loading times, as both unintended technical issues.

You're deliberately trying to waste my time with bogus rebuttals at this point.



No, youre still thinking of speed in battle as PROCESSING power. If they just tighten up - something? Im not sure what you even think they can tighten up to make it FASTER - the LOGIC of the battle then you get SPEED. If the logic is 100 steps long because they are looking for the most devasting thing they can do without taking damage and in youre in a room with barrels that explode and have a certain radius and 2 of the enemies have abilities that can cause ignition but some of the barrels are just acid then there is a lot of checks being made. If they check, every time, starting from the top. What are my abiliies, what elements do those abilities have, if any, what are all the objects, do any of them interact with my abilities or elements, can I hit one that doesn't interact, if so does the element in that thing i am hitting interact with any of the other things in the barrels, if they do, what is the AOE, am I in that AOE, are any of my friends in that AOE, are the enemies in that AOE, are the enemies resistant or immune to that damage, what if I shoot them, what are my odds, does it do more damage than the element and on and on and on with elevation meaning more DPS, threat ranges, lighting conditions, flanking conditions.

Since its YOUR computer running the calculations it takes a long time. It is client-side computing that is running a pure number crunching routine based on the defined logic of their combat system. They cant make YOUR computer faster. They CAN simplify the logic by changing combat variables and the determination checks the go through. Saying they are both "technical issues" is a grossly reductionist, if not driven out of pure ignorance of how development works (ive been in IT for 25 years, almost 20 as a developer). I don't know where your authority is deriving from on your statements of the nature of how this stuff works but you must have some crazy dev experience because I have never run into what you are describing.
Posted By: Seraphael Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 08:37 PM
Mentioned this in another thread, might as well do it again here. For Warlocks, change the Hex spell to debuff ability checks automatically, or just remove that effect completely. Will save and annoying time waster.
Posted By: Matrick Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 09:07 PM
don't think the combat takes too long at all. more enemies the better! also surprisingly i actually really like the turn-based style. i know nothing about D&D and have only ever played BG1&2 and icewind dale so real-time-with-pause is all I've ever known, but I'm glad BG3 didn't go that route.

one thing i have learned about D&D though (solely based on these forums) is that it has the snobbiest, most toxic player base ive ever seen in my life haha. and on top of that everyone that posts anything ends up blatting about every response they get. if you're that sensitive don't post your opinions. honestly though, i think you all get offended intentionally just to get into these pointless de-railing debates to see who can sound the smartest. talking like you're writing a thesis paper in a video game forum lol
Posted By: Ormgaard Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 09:13 PM
Large engaging battles are whats best about the game, im not here to play diablo.
Posted By: TravelingBuddha Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 09:18 PM
You fell asleep...while playing a video game... this is not healthy. Get some rest and take care of yourself. Also, stay hydrated!
Posted By: Orbax Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 09:25 PM
Originally Posted by Matrick
don't think the combat takes too long at all. more enemies the better! also surprisingly i actually really like the turn-based style. i know nothing about D&D and have only ever played BG1&2 and icewind dale so real-time-with-pause is all I've ever known, but I'm glad BG3 didn't go that route.

one thing i have learned about D&D though (solely based on these forums) is that it has the snobbiest, most toxic player base ive ever seen in my life haha. and on top of that everyone that posts anything ends up blatting about every response they get. if you're that sensitive don't post your opinions. honestly though, i think you all get offended intentionally just to get into these pointless de-railing debates to see who can sound the smartest. talking like you're writing a thesis paper in a video game forum lol


None of that makes sense, but the neutral third party therefore im right, pipe smoking, armchair analysis was much appreciated given your own admittance of ignorance and lack of experience. I think you might think this is some intense kaiju battle based on you thinking it takes effort for people to think. Some people can actually just do it :\ But the way you set up an argument of "if anyone responds to this post then I am right" premise you put forth youll have a nice masturbatical experience of being ignored and feeling youve changed something or someone responding and a smug smile creeping across your face.

What people are doing in this forum Larian ostensibly peruses is giving feedback on what players are experiencing in their game and frustrations with possible solutions. As requested by the studio. This isn't complicated.
Posted By: Matrick Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 10:35 PM
fed the troll hahah. not sure what was so hard for u to make sense of..

more enemies the better! <--- this would be my feedback Orbax.. in case u struggle again
Posted By: clavis Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 17/10/20 10:40 PM
Originally Posted by Orbax
Originally Posted by Matrick
don't think the combat takes too long at all. more enemies the better! also surprisingly i actually really like the turn-based style. i know nothing about D&D and have only ever played BG1&2 and icewind dale so real-time-with-pause is all I've ever known, but I'm glad BG3 didn't go that route.

one thing i have learned about D&D though (solely based on these forums) is that it has the snobbiest, most toxic player base ive ever seen in my life haha. and on top of that everyone that posts anything ends up blatting about every response they get. if you're that sensitive don't post your opinions. honestly though, i think you all get offended intentionally just to get into these pointless de-railing debates to see who can sound the smartest. talking like you're writing a thesis paper in a video game forum lol


None of that makes sense, but the neutral third party therefore im right, pipe smoking, armchair analysis was much appreciated given your own admittance of ignorance and lack of experience. I think you might think this is some intense kaiju battle based on you thinking it takes effort for people to think. Some people can actually just do it :\ But the way you set up an argument of "if anyone responds to this post then I am right" premise you put forth youll have a nice masturbatical experience of being ignored and feeling youve changed something or someone responding and a smug smile creeping across your face.

What people are doing in this forum Larian ostensibly peruses is giving feedback on what players are experiencing in their game and frustrations with possible solutions. As requested by the studio. This isn't complicated.


Ummm, Mr. Holmes your losing me... and that.. is that a violin sounding like bagpipes??? is killing me.

Effort to think, honestly I am really surpised that some people haven't stopped breathing, just saying yah know some people...... eeeeeeeeeekkk
Posted By: DrNikolai Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 01:21 AM
When it comes to the game mechanics as far as combat, I can agree that large battles can be off putting. A few examples relate to certain battles in the swamp, or if you choose to attack the grove for instance. In these battles, depending on what happens, you may encounter 12 or more enemies. When this is coupled with the turn base, AI "lag" or "thinking process" it can be off putting, boring, frustrating or any other number of mixed emotions.

It is one thing to have a turn based combat system and feel excitement as your turn is coming up thinking "oh perfect, the enemy is falling right into my trap." However, it can be extremely frustrating to have a 30+ minute combat session with multiple enemies that out number your party 3 or 4 to 1 and the entire combat session is centered around the AI thinking. Of course we have to take into consideration this is early access and will definitely be addressed prior to release, which is an upside.

I have also noticed various issues with combat where if a character makes a stealth action, say stealth attack and kills an NPC it can go one of two ways. One the NPC dies and the character can continue on their way, or two, the NPC dies and everyone who is not in or around the area becomes hostile and targets the player. I am not sure if this is a bug or something that is meant to happen, but it is confusing to say the least.

Other issues with combat are the random NPC's that become hostile on one save state, but when it is reloaded they are fine.
Posted By: Clawfoot Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 01:31 AM
Combat is not only too long, it's also really dull. You mostly get to do one real thing per turn, which is fine in tabletop but lends itself very poorly to a video game. At least in Divinity you could often do at least two things on a turn, and sometimes even more. When 90% of the things you do in the game consists of simply clicking to auto-attack an enemy, it's just such a chore to grind your way through these 20-minute battles. BG3 should have had an option to choose between TB and RTWP. It's such a boring game in its current state.
Posted By: Panda Warlord Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 04:01 AM
For major encounters it's mostly fine but it's almost every encounter. Dror Ragzlin encounter is pretty bad though. For the sheer number of enemies in the room, his stat bloat, the scale to which it can escalate, there not really being an alternative to just fighting head on.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 05:46 AM
I agree that combat are too long.
It looks like they're not a part of the story and it's flow is broken many times, especially with huge encounters.

I like fighting against many ennemies butz they have to adjust the creatures so your characters are more efficient to kill those trash goblins.
Every combat doesn't have to be ridiculously slow and/or """Epic""".
Posted By: virion Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 06:01 AM
I guess "combat is too long" falls under the category of difficulty levels not being there yet. Most of the fights were disappointingly easy.
Combat will be a bit longer on higher difficulties and depending on how well you mid-maxed your team I hope. Right now we're playing on arbitrary numbers.

I would be ok with Larian making enemies have twice as much HP to actually make us use those LV2 spells a bit more. Without increasing their DMG even cause in their current state they kinda hurt.

Right now apart from a few encounters, you can just execute everything in 2 hits max with a competent self-made cleric(Shadowheart sub-class is trash after me). 2 Arrows per target. Cause yes, my cleric has maxed out wisdom +dexterity and it's enough to roll over everything if you add his spells over it.

Posted By: Popsculpture Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 06:12 AM
Originally Posted by virion
I guess "combat is too long" falls under the category of difficulty levels not being there yet. Most of the fights were disappointingly easy.
Combat will be a bit longer on higher difficulties and depending on how well you mid-maxed your team I hope. Right now we're playing on arbitrary numbers.

I would be ok with Larian making enemies have twice as much HP to actually make us use those LV2 spells a bit more. Without increasing their DMG even cause in their current state they kinda hurt.

Right now apart from a few encounters, you can just execute everything in 2 hits max with a competent self-made cleric(Shadowheart sub-class is trash after me). 2 Arrows per target. Cause yes, my cleric has maxed out wisdom +dexterity and it's enough to roll over everything if you add his spells over it.


This really hasn't been my experience unless i decide to exploit terrain (like actually exploit not just use it effectively) and cheese skills like shove or hide, but not so much in standard play. I keep hearing people say things like that. Am I just bad at this game?
Posted By: virion Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 06:17 AM
Originally Posted by Popsculpture
Originally Posted by virion
I guess "combat is too long" falls under the category of difficulty levels not being there yet. Most of the fights were disappointingly easy.
Combat will be a bit longer on higher difficulties and depending on how well you mid-maxed your team I hope. Right now we're playing on arbitrary numbers.

I would be ok with Larian making enemies have twice as much HP to actually make us use those LV2 spells a bit more. Without increasing their DMG even cause in their current state they kinda hurt.

Right now apart from a few encounters, you can just execute everything in 2 hits max with a competent self-made cleric(Shadowheart sub-class is trash after me). 2 Arrows per target. Cause yes, my cleric has maxed out wisdom +dexterity and it's enough to roll over everything if you add his spells over it.


This really hasn't been my experience unless i decide to exploit terrain (like actually exploit not just use it effectively) and cheese skills like shove or hide, but not so much in standard play. I keep hearing people say things like that. Am I just bad at this game?


I grew up with Baldur's gate. The way those fights unfold,the spells they throw at me..I know every single one of them. I know what kind of spells to expect from which mob. It's not necessarily you being bad, is just a part of the people on this forum finished BG2 three times. Than a year later one more...and one more...and 20 years have passed ... so yeah after that much time you figure out a way to trivialize D&D combat ^^
Posted By: Popsculpture Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 06:53 AM
I appreciate the insight. I do have a really firm grasp of the rules of 5e and how things work and I trivialize D:OS2 but still find this game pretty challenging at points. But i think it may have more to do with my dice rolls; I've never missed so many 90% chances in my life lol.
Posted By: Fisher Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 07:07 AM
Strongly disagree. Maybe you need a better computer because most rounds end fairly quickly, even in the larger battles with 10+ enemies. I'm also used to playing D&D, so I'm familiar with most of my turns at lower levels being "I attack. I miss. End turn" for a few rounds until either side dies.
Posted By: mr_planescapist Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 07:11 AM
Battle speed is WAY SLOWER than BG2. I mean, not a LITTLE slower, its WAY SLOWER. Bummer since this is a sequel :(((
A fix? Have concurrent enemies take their turns at the same time (like Temple of Elemental Evil did I think?) There. x3 faster. This would give you that BG2 real time "feel" to it smile
Posted By: KingTiki Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 07:22 AM
Again,

the only thing that really is too long is the AI thinking. Atm even one enemy going for the "don't know what to do loop" is adding 20secs to the enemies turns. If you have multiple of them it really drags. Fights where all the AIs know what to do are just the length of the tabletop. This seems to be just another sneaky "gimme RtwP" threads. Maybe it is time that people get over it.

One good proposal in this thread was: enemies doing their concurrent turns at the same time, as players do. This could have potential to fasten combat up. I just think Larian fears that players don't see all the things the enemies are doing, which I think is a fair point.

And to be quite honest: either OP does not know what the word literally means or needs to evaluate their sleep habits wink
Posted By: denhonator Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 07:30 AM
+1 for simultaneous AI. It doesn't need to be full chaos either, for example, maybe about halfway through one turn, another enemy starts their turn. It could be a setting how much AI overlaps their actions when they have multiple character's turns, depending on how closely the player wants to pay attention to every move
Posted By: Aurgelmir Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 07:51 AM
Originally Posted by LookingforBG
Large battles are ridiculous. I literally fell asleep in the middle of a battle while waiting for enemy actions. This turn-based business and AI is quite frankly atrocious. Like someone said in another thread, small battles are okay in this but as soon as you start to have 7+ enemies the battles just become way too long. If you have the ability and sometimes necessity to save in the middle of battle, you know your battles are too long. Simple. It's pretty bad when the battles are so long that you are literally falling asleep. The large battles are a distraction from the story progression. Make live action an option!



I think some battles drag on for long, but I've noticed it's usually due to three things, and neither of it is "it's because it's turn based". Turn based games are awesome, but they need the right pacing that's for sure. Look at Xcom, the game is all about turn based combat, and it's popular.

But here's three issues in BG3:
1. "Plotting next move", this is a bug, some enemies time out while "plotting"
2. Movement speed. Honestly, everyone in a combat moves waaaaaay to slow.
3. Combat maps are too big, and starts too far from each other. This can be fun in some cases. But if none of my characters can engage in combat turn 1, then you are going to waste a turn of everyone slowly running towards each other (slowly) When you also then add elevation, and maybe two areas of elevation etc. This adds to difficulty, and I don't mind it, but it also adds "slowing" issues.

So optimizing the AI, and then add in a "2x speed" button or something, and the combat would be a lot faster. (We need this for moving overland too honestly, because it's so slow)

----

I personally like the big combats, but I agree they can get tedious. Just like in DnD 5e, the more monsters you put into a combat, the longer it takes.

But it should be said: The more I have played, the more effective my combats become. I know who's where, and how to engage to not pull everyone etc.

As for "It takes away from the story". What? All the huge combats I have had are part of the plotline. It makes it more fun in my eyes that you get huge battles, but they just need to optimize the speed.
Posted By: Merry Mayhem Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 07:52 AM
My issues with large battles are:

1. The AI needs a lot of work. I have had time where the AI takes a minute or more just sitting there and then does nothing for a mob. If each mob was doing their action in like 6 seconds, it would feel much better.

2. Don't throw all of the encounter as me at once. If you have dozen mobs for a encounter, start with like 6 an have 2 join after 2-3 rounds so they come in waves.

3. Stop with the NPCs, games should be about the party. I don't want to watch NPC fighting mobs.
Posted By: Nyanko Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 07:57 AM
Well, anyone played D&D? You remember these sessions in which 3/4 of the time is spent in one battle? This is actually very accurate with the source material.
Posted By: Eiken Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 10:17 AM
"turn animation speed: ultra fast" option would be great to have
Posted By: denhonator Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 10:27 AM
Originally Posted by Nyanko
Well, anyone played D&D? You remember these sessions in which 3/4 of the time is spent in one battle? This is actually very accurate with the source material.


That doesn't mean fights should be longer than they could be. There are clearly ways they could speed it up. The speed of a battle should mostly depend on how fast the players make their moves, but right now you often spend more time looking at AI goofing around rather than you actually playing the game.

Also, video games are expected to be a faster paced medium than board games / tabletop RPGs.
Posted By: ChickenInSpace Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 10:34 AM
Six character party would definitely up the pace in combat (yes, it would - you would be killing faster, thus making up for whatever time you spent managing those extra two people)
Posted By: denhonator Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 10:42 AM
Originally Posted by ChickenInSpace
Six character party would definitely up the pace in combat (yes, it would - you would be killing faster, thus making up for whatever time you spent managing those extra two people)


I see what you mean, but 6 character party is so much stronger than 4 and you would need more enemies to keep the game challenging so it more or less evens out. 6 characters probably also often mean that there are more cases where one character's impact is smaller. It tends to get a little crowded as it is, and if jump is nerfed you'll get characters stuck in the back for sure.

Of course, if they improve AI speed, maybe adjust pathing and party control, 6 character party could work just fine as well but that's another discussion
Posted By: KingTiki Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 10:56 AM
Originally Posted by denhonator
That doesn't mean fights should be longer than they could be. There are clearly ways they could speed it up. The speed of a battle should mostly depend on how fast the players make their moves, but right now you often spend more time looking at AI goofing around rather than you actually playing the game.

Also, video games are expected to be a faster paced medium than board games / tabletop RPGs.


And BG3 is already faster than most of the tables I played at, even WITH the AI bugging out. Whenever a fight goes smooth (no time out for the AI), it is fast enough. It's just not RTwP, never will be and that is fine. But the RTwP crowd will complain about slow combat forever, because they can't deal with it.
Posted By: Zahur Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 11:14 AM
I don't believe in larger parties to speed up fight. Frankly to massively speed-up fights I often go solo just with my main buffed character (STR 18, CON 18, AC 20). The other party members just cast on him Bless, Armor of Faith, Longstrider and Jump and stay a way out of combat to easily maintain concentration. Being solo means enemies will not spread out to catch other (and much weaker) party members. I am something like fire or hot light bulb for a moths. But this strategy really works only if you have min-maxed you main character.
Posted By: denhonator Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 11:34 AM
Originally Posted by KingTiki

And BG3 is already faster than most of the tables I played at, even WITH the AI bugging out.


That's not very hard to achieve, and that also doesn't mean they shouldn't do anything to improve it. Slower combat isn't inherently better or more D&D like. We should look into what aspects slow it down. Planning and strategizing? Carefully executing turns? That's what turn based combat is about. Looking at 10 goblins stand still for 5 seconds, then move a little, one at a time? No one wants that.

I get that some people want to see enemy turns one by one, but the AI just freezing is not good for anything and should be fixed. And if by any means possible, add an option for simultanous AI or a button to fast forward their turns for example, so those who want it can speed things up a bit and spend more time doing their own turns instead. This will be particularly helpful when your attacks are missing to get another opportunity quicker especially if they revert the AC changes like many people want.
Posted By: Tuco Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 11:44 AM
Well, but once again, what do you think it should be the take away from all that?
"AI should think and act quicker"? That's as redundant as it gets as far as advices go. It almost calls for the proverbial "No shit, Sherlock".
There's very little doubt that they will obviously make it as fast as can, as soon as they figure out how to achieve that.
Posted By: KingTiki Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 11:44 AM
Originally Posted by denhonator
Originally Posted by KingTiki

And BG3 is already faster than most of the tables I played at, even WITH the AI bugging out.


That's not very hard to achieve, and that also doesn't mean they shouldn't do anything to improve it.


Then maybe don't just quote half the post ^^
Obviously no one wants the AI to be slow or buggy in the finished game. Whenever the AI is not slow and buggy the turns are fast enough. Ideally the AI should be doing all their stuff "instantly" like taking 1sec to calculate. This means the code probably needs a little optimization or perhaps another deciding algorithm. A problem I see with concurrent turns is that it makes it harder for an algorithm to decide what to do as it has to weigh more options at the same time (like not locking in on one target that another AI just downed -> so who goes first).

Also I think that you need to revert the unbalancing of the monsters. Right now the action economy advantage can't be achieved as fast as with normal 5e rules.
Posted By: denhonator Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 11:53 AM
Originally Posted by Tuco
Well, but once again, what do you think it should be the take away from all that?
"AI should think and act quicker"? That's as redundant as it gets as far as advices go. It almost calls for the proverbial "No shit, Sherlock".
There's very little doubt that they will obviously make it as fast as can, as soon as they figure out how to achieve that.


I don't know about D:OS2 but in D:OS1 the AI does the same thing, although less frequently. They might spend 10s just stuck, not doing anything until they pass the turn. If we weren't bringing it up, they might just think it works well enough and leave it as is
Posted By: Seraphael Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 01:37 PM
Originally Posted by Ormgaard
Large engaging battles are whats best about the game, im not here to play diablo.

Whereas I agree with this sentiment at least in part, it does not address the issue of NEEDLESS timesinks. For instance the Warlock Hex spell where you choose an ability to curse in a submenu/inventory as a secondary effect that has no or little effect on actual gameplay. Larian should abstract complex abilities/spells more to save time, for instance making Hex either automatically disadvantage ALL ability checks, or simply give a flat modifier penalty (ie -4).
Posted By: Tuco Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 01:45 PM
Originally Posted by denhonator

I don't know about D:OS2 but in D:OS1 the AI does the same thing, although less frequently. They might spend 10s just stuck, not doing anything until they pass the turn. If we weren't bringing it up, they might just think it works well enough and leave it as is

DOS2 got considerably faster across the EA and through subsequent updates.
For DOS1 I can't really say I remember this ever being a problem to begin with.

But of course if you are expecting it to become instantaneous that's NOT going to happen no matter the amount of optimization. Flexible AI is always going to use a certain amount of computational power.
Posted By: Horrorscope Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 02:30 PM
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by denhonator

I don't know about D:OS2 but in D:OS1 the AI does the same thing, although less frequently. They might spend 10s just stuck, not doing anything until they pass the turn. If we weren't bringing it up, they might just think it works well enough and leave it as is

DOS2 got considerably faster across the EA and through subsequent updates.
For DOS1 I can't really say I remember this ever being a problem to begin with.

But of course if you are expecting it to become instantaneous that's NOT going to happen no matter the amount of optimization. Flexible AI is always going to use a certain amount of computational power.


They had issues like this in their previous games in EA but they were all cleared up on release. I'm confident the AI lulls won't be there and yes to an option to speed up combat movement/animation speed, this is a common TB feature.
Posted By: Emrikol Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 02:30 PM
Aside from the current and occasional, and very likely temporary, AI delays, the battles are fine IMO.

-1
Posted By: Nagfar Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 03:09 PM
Agree on battles dragging on for too long. It becomes especially boring when all you can do is one attack and then wait, wait, wait. I often found myself alt+tab to read internet while enemies do their turns.
I guaranty it will exhausted a lot of players in long run, in same way as it did with DOS 2, when only few reach the end titles of the game, while most become bored and leave, in hopes to come back some day and finish, which they never do. And all thanks to long, dragging battles.
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 03:16 PM
+1 for allowing enemies to act simultaneously. This could even be an option people could turn on or off, so those that wanted to follow each enemy's turn individually could do that too!

Also, yes, please less NPCs in combats going forward. Aside from the time lost watching NPCs doing things, more friendly NPCs means more enemies to face for a balanced encounter, which means a longer combat. 1 NPC is fine. 3+ NPCs is tedious.
Posted By: Panda Warlord Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 07:12 PM
Originally Posted by Nyanko
Well, anyone played D&D? You remember these sessions in which 3/4 of the time is spent in one battle? This is actually very accurate with the source material.


My personal experience is I remember those campaigns dying and ones which actively streamlined combat so that didn't happen lasting.
Posted By: Zefhyr Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 07:39 PM
KingTiki you said "But the RTwP crowd will complain about slow combat forever, because they can't deal with it."
I can't stand it cause it's voluntarily rude and pretentious.

I played lot of turn-based games, not only DOS1 and 2 but also Homm 2, 3, 4, 5 ,6, 7, King's Bounty, Viking's something, etc etc.
So I'm used and I am able to appreciate turn-based game.

Your..... well... I guess I have to call it an "argument" about people who "complain about slow combat forever because they can't deal with it", this argument is just a joke at least, to not say an offense.

So, really I would like that YOU explain me what is fun in a long fight against weak ennemies you know you're going to kill anyway ?
Again, my best exemple. After having killed the leader of the goblins and killed everybody inside the building, I tp outside to end the job.
So I appear close to a ladder, I go up and then begun a reaaly long, stupid, useless and uninteresting combat. And yeah, you know what ? I didn't enjoy it and I didn't appreciate to loose time on a so stupid game-time.

But please, explain me what joy do you find in this kind of encounter ? Explain what joy and fun you have when looking at tons of weaklings coming to the death as slowly as they can ?

Even with optimisation, it will be long and boring. And if I'm wrong, please, explain me how can I enjoy this moment of pure cerebral-death ?

Really I have nothing against turn-based, I can enjoy it with intense and hard fights.
But the fact is, in this game, there are and there will be encounters easy to deal with.
For this encounters, we need more than just "AI optimisation".
RTwP would be, for my point fo view, the obvious and better option (some games did it, it worked) but why not, at least, the all AI moving at the same time, I don't care !

But don't talk like taht, trashing people who disagree with you.

See, I don't agree with you but am I mean ? No ? Did I say something like "the Turn-based crowd willc omplain about fast and real time combat forever, because they can't deal with it."

No, because it's as wrong as disrepectfull.

Posted By: KingTiki Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 07:56 PM
Originally Posted by Zefhyr
KingTiki you said "But the RTwP crowd will complain about slow combat forever, because they can't deal with it."
I can't stand it cause it's voluntarily rude and pretentious.

Really I have nothing against turn-based, I can enjoy it with intense and hard fights.
But the fact is, in this game, there are and there will be encounters easy to deal with.
For this encounters, we need more than just "AI optimisation".


Well it seems you did not get what I was saying. I said a subset of people here, the "RTwP crowd" I called them, will NEVER be satisfied. If you belong to that subset or not is not up to me.

As for optimization beyond AI, I think it is rather simple. They need to revert the rebalancing they did regarding AC, HP and spell effects. The fight will be pretty fast and easy when you can just shatter half the enemies with 1 turn as a wizard. As it stands now this is pretty hard because of the HP bloat.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 08:15 PM
These combats ARE SLOW, even for a turn based game...

This is because Larian focus on "epic" fight and not on immersive fights inside the story.
This game looks like XCOM in which the focus is combats but with a story, a few quests and a little bit of exploration...
Definitely not like a Baldur's Gate with TB combats or even a Wasteland 2 (which is exactly what BG3 should looks like talking about combats flow).

The flow of combats is bad and boring because nearly every encounter is designed to be an extraordinarily special moment...
One time you have reinforcement, one time you have OP creatures, you have tons of spellcasters, tons of surfaces effects, verticality everywhere, creatures have more HP than needed,...

They totally forgot to design "trash" combats and this is exactly why nothing looks like an epic combat and why everything is so slow.
Posted By: TimVanBeek Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 08:22 PM
Originally Posted by KingTiki

As for optimization beyond AI, I think it is rather simple. They need to revert the rebalancing they did regarding AC, HP and spell effects. The fight will be pretty fast and easy when you can just shatter half the enemies with 1 turn as a wizard. As it stands now this is pretty hard because of the HP bloat.


I can think of two additional ideas, first: do not have trash mob fights in the game. I don't get why they exist in RTwP games, but in turn base games they are extra annoying. DOS:1 and DOS:2, or other games like XCOM, do not have this problem, because every fight is pretty much unique, regarding the setup, the enemies, and special mechanics like timers and such. Fighting 5 groups of 4 to 6 goblins in a cathedral ruin is getting old fast. Then there are some setups that are probably just not polished, because: EA. For example the Redcaps in the Swamp started out two kilometers away from me. I was skipping rounds and picking them off one after another with ranged attacks.

And, secondly, let me configure and activate AI for my party, if there have to be random mobs and easy encounters. The game could play itself while I drink coffee and watch youtube.
Posted By: SilverSaint Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 08:26 PM
Originally Posted by LookingforBG
Large battles are ridiculous. I literally fell asleep in the middle of a battle while waiting for enemy actions. This turn-based business and AI is quite frankly atrocious. Like someone said in another thread, small battles are okay in this but as soon as you start to have 7+ enemies the battles just become way too long. If you have the ability and sometimes necessity to save in the middle of battle, you know your battles are too long. Simple. It's pretty bad when the battles are so long that you are literally falling asleep. The large battles are a distraction from the story progression. Make live action an option!

The problem with these threads is that it is basically impossible for them to actually do it with their current engine. You are, in essence, asking them to make a completely new game. It's not useful feedback at all.

Useful feedback would be in the vein of-lower enemy health, remove combatants and increase rewards to compensate, speed up enemy thought and, if necessary, simplify enemy behaviors to do this, etc.

But the RTWP threads have never really had a chance of getting the game to change-it's just not plausible.
Posted By: Eddiar Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 08:27 PM
Am I the only one that enjoys the long fights?
Posted By: kanisatha Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 08:41 PM
Any battle in BG3 that involves using lots of oil barrels and fire effects as the standard way to get through it (even if one could use some other more sophisticated approach to win it) is a battle that Larian should take a cold, hard second look at. I will never use the oil barrels cheese, and as such if not doing it that way results in a battle that drags on for many rounds I would get very aggravated with it.
Posted By: Horrorscope Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 08:47 PM
Originally Posted by Eddiar
Am I the only one that enjoys the long fights?


I'm fine with them, but a quicker thinking AI (I'm confident that will be in game by release) and a sped up speed toggle is appreciated.

Posted By: Sludge Khalid Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 08:47 PM
I’m not that worried about battle length as long as they make sense in how it’s disrupted. Like at the goblin town and any divinity game, provoking a fight might cause the whole city to be against you. That a little bit silly.

The battle pace is somehow better than DOS2, where you are more under a strength contest rushing to overwhelm your foes with stunlock before they stunlock you. Maybe that fast forward option that many strategy games have will be enough?
Posted By: denhonator Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 08:50 PM
Originally Posted by SilverSaint

The problem with these threads is that it is basically impossible for them to actually do it with their current engine. You are, in essence, asking them to make a completely new game. It's not useful feedback at all.


What knowledge do you have of their engine that makes you say it's basically impossible?
Posted By: virion Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 10:16 PM
Originally Posted by denhonator
Originally Posted by SilverSaint

The problem with these threads is that it is basically impossible for them to actually do it with their current engine. You are, in essence, asking them to make a completely new game. It's not useful feedback at all.


RTwP is discussed in another thread, let's stay with how to make combat faster while staying TB in this one. Making all enemies move at the same time or at least engage faster would make sense. Right now they all clearly plan after you make your move. I think the AI could start thinking and planning BEFORE you act. Make an assumption of the best move and then just quickly QA it against the current situation. Maybe it would make it a bit faster. They know your skills, they know who's the threat. Back in DOS:2 I've seen the AI figure out some really insane things. Most of the time they don't even need to do it, the simple things sometimes work the best.


What knowledge do you have of their engine that makes you say it's basically impossible?


Pillars of eternity was RTwP and they added TB cause the community asked for it.
In the case of Pathfinder: Kingmaker it was the exact opposite I think but not sure about it. They have both in the end.
Baldur's Gate I & II was RTwP.... by accident. Mostly due to budget issues. They did the game on an RTS engine.

Ultimately yes, BG3 could have both to appeal to it's public. It's not a question of who's right cause you're both right. It's a question of does Larian wants to invest in it and it seems their CEO is against it so...there's that.

After me, it's a question of how many people play this game solo VS how many people play it in MP. Cause TB is way better for MP after me. If a high % of players play solo then why not try to think about them and add RTwP for them. If it happens it will be a post-release feature anyway since it's a huge element that wasn't on their initial roadmap. But....we'll see.
Posted By: Zefhyr Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 10:30 PM
KingTigi,

what's up to you is to assume I won't be satisfied cause I can't deal with it (turn-based gameplay)".
No really matter if I consider myself as a part of the "RTwP crowd".
The point is this statement seems a little rude from my point of view.

By the way, no one ever explained me what is fun in the long fight !

I don't get what you try to explain about the wizard shattering half the ennemies in one round... Really don't understand it. :-/

TimVanBeek
You said "And, secondly, let me configure and activate AI for my party, if there have to be random mobs and easy encounters. The game could play itself while I drink coffee and watch youtube."
I found it funny cause this is exactly the problem for me playing BG3, somes fights are so broing you would like to just drink coffee waiting for your computer to deal with it. It's as funny as sad because a game shouldn't give the gamer this kind of desire.
It's, from my point of view, the perfect unvoluntary evidence that the actual gameplay failed. ^^
(But I find your proposal interesting anyway !)

Eddiar, so can you tell me what there is to enjoy in the long and meaningless fights (not talking about the challenging fights, just the trashy one) ?

Kanishata, this is one of the thing who disturbed me after hearing Larian talked about the "way more strategic aspect of turn-based". In fact, sometimes the fights looks like a "rush to the hills" to the point it's more like a puzzle-game than an actual "strategy-game".
I mean if there is one or two strong strategy... this is no more strategy, this is pattern.
That and the barrels. Barrels are dumb.
I never used it during my first game (well... once to be honest, against the minotaur) but today I began a new game, I decided to fight the goblins at the mill. After having reload 3 or 4 times I just put 3 barrels of oil and made them explode. I didn't feel like Zhuge Liang nor I did feel like Lu Bu. I just feel like a sneaky gamer. Not a hero of an amazing adventure, more like a pathetic gamer using the imbalanced system of the game. Still I choose to feel pathetic than reloading for the xx times my saves. Not because I thougth I couldn't win this fight without barrels. Just because failing a fight take soooo long.

By the way, talking about how slow the game feels. I think everything is slow. Selecting skills si slow, transferring stuff is slow. Half of the time I have to re-click cause the first click was to fast for the game... i guess it participates to give this really bad feeling of slowness...

Virion
you are so right. Thx you for your clear explanation.
We should have the choice between the two options.
Posted By: virion Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 11:00 PM
Zefhyr I have to agree with the fact the game currently is basically slow AF. t's slow for the wrong reasons I have to say. But it should be slow for the correct reasons. See the below.

The thing about slow fights is it's one way to add some weight and importance to them. It's a silly way gotta say, but it's one way. If I fight against two minotaurs and I execute them AND no one dies than I feel it was too easy.
Same for goblins: There's 18 of them outside, they all take their turn and they will hit you sooner or later. If you approach the fight right you will survive, if you just rush in you will die.

I ignore AI performance issues and how much time they take to make their actions etc. -> This should be fixed. I feel you are right about animations and enemies taking too much time to perform their actions.


But if I end a fight with nearly 20 enemies in less than at least 10 minutes then I won't feel the fight was an important one. I won't understand why the druids wanted to bunker themselves using a powerful ancient spell.

If on release Larian will make a hardmode with x2 HP for all enemies then I will be playing it. To force me to use the spells. To force me to struggle. Maybe to force me to use barrels cause currently I ignored their existence and blew up the druid grove before ending my adventure. If you don't struggle than there's no reward in building your character to become an OP badass after me ^^.

Archers already make most of the encounters too easy. LV2 Spells are just so OP in the current version I use max 1 per encounter otherwise i will just shread to pieces everything(the AOE from a cleric with up to 20 dmg in aoe, 3d6 AOE x3 as lv 2 spell).

In conclusion:
The fights need improvements. They need to feel smoother, cleaner and the situation need to change WAY faster. But the end length of fights should stay at the current length after me for those who want to enjoy them. For those who want to take a lot of time to kill everyone despite dealing up to 12 DMG per hit without spells.

Posted By: Dajal Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/20 11:03 PM
Battles are not too long at all. They feel very fun and almost lightning fast. You either Hit or Miss.
Posted By: kanisatha Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 27/10/20 02:34 AM
Originally Posted by Zefhyr
Kanishata, this is one of the thing who disturbed me after hearing Larian talked about the "way more strategic aspect of turn-based". In fact, sometimes the fights looks like a "rush to the hills" to the point it's more like a puzzle-game than an actual "strategy-game".
I mean if there is one or two strong strategy... this is no more strategy, this is pattern.
That and the barrels. Barrels are dumb.
I never used it during my first game (well... once to be honest, against the minotaur) but today I began a new game, I decided to fight the goblins at the mill. After having reload 3 or 4 times I just put 3 barrels of oil and made them explode. I didn't feel like Zhuge Liang nor I did feel like Lu Bu. I just feel like a sneaky gamer. Not a hero of an amazing adventure, more like a pathetic gamer using the imbalanced system of the game. Still I choose to feel pathetic than reloading for the xx times my saves. Not because I thougth I couldn't win this fight without barrels. Just because failing a fight take soooo long.

Yes exactly. And for me none of those options (using cheese strategies and tactics versus reloading again and again versus painfully wading through many rounds of combat) is acceptable. They are all extremely aggravating. That's why I have essentially given up on the combat in this game being any fun for me, and am focused only on whether the non-combat parts of the game are good enough to make the game worth my time. Or to put it another way, can playing the game in some form of 'story mode' be good enough for me?
Posted By: Prometheus Bound Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 27/10/20 05:22 AM
This seems like a polarizing topic - gonna try to take the middle road. The BATTLES themselves are not too long, but the AI's decision-making logic and animations really take a LONG time. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that this might be a performance issue and some players might experience quick, snappy gameplay while others have to wait through NPC turns that take as long as (or longer than) PC turns, strangely resembling the worst parts of pen and paper DnD.
Posted By: gaymer Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 27/10/20 05:52 AM
The AI spends so much time stalling and idling on turns, sometimes just to do absolutely nothing or a completely pointless move. I don't think the AI has been upgraded by Larian or fixed, like they did later with DOS 2 "Dangerous AI."

I love large-scale battles and lots of enemies, instead of even numbers, but the time the AI takes to think or their turns is ridiculous.
Posted By: LostSoul Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 27/10/20 06:01 AM
Speeding up the AI would be great. Dnd is all about the dice rolls, hit and miss. Even with 80+% chance to hit I miss alot . Every miss means a longer fight
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 27/10/20 06:05 AM
They broke the game because they artificially increased the %hit.
They decrease the AC so you hit more often, but they increase the HP so you have to hit more to kill.

This also completely break the combats and their flow (especially for spellcaster).
Posted By: SilverSaint Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 27/10/20 06:12 AM
Originally Posted by denhonator
Originally Posted by SilverSaint

The problem with these threads is that it is basically impossible for them to actually do it with their current engine. You are, in essence, asking them to make a completely new game. It's not useful feedback at all.


What knowledge do you have of their engine that makes you say it's basically impossible?

There are several tutorials, I encourage you to research it yourself rather than relying on my paraphrase. But, in essence, the entire game occurs during turns, which are defined by second intervals outside of combat. Because the AI is, from the ground up, built around these turns. I looked it up and apparently some modders have managed to get the engine to allow real time combat, so I wasn't as informed as I wanted. However my impression of watching this is that the combat only works with basically auto-attacking when the engine is pushed like this and it's extremely glitchy-basically, targeting falls apart, particularly targeting of anything more complicated than the basic weapons.
Posted By: Zarna Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 27/10/20 06:41 AM
Originally Posted by gaymer
The AI spends so much time stalling and idling on turns, sometimes just to do absolutely nothing or a completely pointless move. I don't think the AI has been upgraded by Larian or fixed, like they did later with DOS 2 "Dangerous AI."

I love large-scale battles and lots of enemies, instead of even numbers, but the time the AI takes to think or their turns is ridiculous.

It is promising that the AI was upgraded in another game. It is too idiotic here. If the enemy is to do nothing on their turn then it should quickly change to the player's turn. If they actually moved tactically then large battles for me would be more interesting, not tab out and do other things online, or do house chores while waiting for my turn. Sometimes I forget I am waiting for my turn since whatever rl thing I am doing becomes more interesting than this snooze combat.
Posted By: denhonator Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 27/10/20 07:21 AM
Originally Posted by SilverSaint
Originally Posted by denhonator
Originally Posted by SilverSaint

The problem with these threads is that it is basically impossible for them to actually do it with their current engine. You are, in essence, asking them to make a completely new game. It's not useful feedback at all.


What knowledge do you have of their engine that makes you say it's basically impossible?

There are several tutorials, I encourage you to research it yourself rather than relying on my paraphrase. But, in essence, the entire game occurs during turns, which are defined by second intervals outside of combat. Because the AI is, from the ground up, built around these turns. I looked it up and apparently some modders have managed to get the engine to allow real time combat, so I wasn't as informed as I wanted. However my impression of watching this is that the combat only works with basically auto-attacking when the engine is pushed like this and it's extremely glitchy-basically, targeting falls apart, particularly targeting of anything more complicated than the basic weapons.



Most of what I see here is to make battles faster by speeding up AI turns or balance of the game rather than making it realtime
Posted By: Zefhyr Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 27/10/20 09:05 AM
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. laugh
Posted By: denhonator Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 27/10/20 09:41 AM
Originally Posted by Zefhyr
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.

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.
Posted By: Zefhyr Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 27/10/20 10:07 AM
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).
Posted By: denhonator Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 27/10/20 10:51 AM
Originally Posted by Zefhyr
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.
Posted By: Eiken Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 27/10/20 11:29 AM
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
Posted By: Tuco Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 27/10/20 11:35 AM
Originally Posted by denhonator

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.

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.

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

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.
Posted By: Zefhyr Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 27/10/20 06:36 PM
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.
Posted By: virion Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 27/10/20 09:49 PM
Originally Posted by Zefhyr
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. ^^"


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.


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


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.
Posted By: virion Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 27/10/20 10:00 PM
Originally Posted by Eiken
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


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.
Posted By: Redacted Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 28/10/20 07:42 AM
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.
Posted By: Svalr Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 28/10/20 07:53 AM
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.
Posted By: Isaac Springsong Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 28/10/20 07:59 AM
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.
Posted By: Rhobar121 Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 28/10/20 08:19 AM
Originally Posted by Isaac Springsong
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.


Posted By: Isaac Springsong Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 28/10/20 09:05 AM
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Originally Posted by Isaac Springsong
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?
Posted By: Called&Chosen Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/21 03:04 PM
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.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/21 03:15 PM
Originally Posted by Called&Chosen
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

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)
Posted By: Firesong Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/21 03:44 PM
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
in the goblin camp
.

And since it's turn based I can even have a coffee break in between without having to hit some "pause" key.
Posted By: JandK Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/21 03:48 PM
I don't feel like the battles are too long.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/21 04:50 PM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Now that the AI use dash ans think faster, the speed of most combat is good to me.
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. laugh
Posted By: JandK Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/21 05:01 PM
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
But combat in Grymforge seemed a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT slower. laugh

Wouldn't know. I'm on Stadia. grumble, grumble, muttering, kicking rocks, walking off, still grumbling
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/21 05:02 PM
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Now that the AI use dash ans think faster, the speed of most combat is good to me.
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. laugh

I haven't felt the same.
My combat with Nere was a bit long because all druergar became hostile at the same time but I did not found it slow as it was previously patch 5 in other areas.
Posted By: Zefhyr Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/21 07:26 PM
Long time no see...

Glad to see it's ever the same problem here.
Fights still way to long and boring with lots of opponents.
crappy pathfinding of the team.
Yeah... Nostalgic.. or not.
One year and it's still the same beautiful but still trolly so-called BG successor.

Just... Have you heard about our lord and savior "Pathfinder Wotr". It's amazing they created a game with a pretty huge tactical fights available in RTwP and in turned-base mode.

In-cre-di-ble. How could they do that ? Must be witches.

Keep saying RTwP is impossible, it will be funny to read... maybe... one day.
Posted By: polliwagwhirl Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/21 07:29 PM
The enemy AI in WOTR can't even walk around Grease.
Posted By: JDCrenton Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 26/10/21 07:52 PM
Nothing in this Game is challenging because of the Homebrew. It's still taking A LOT away from the Class System. I know they nerfed Height Advantage and Backstabbing Froggers which is good in its own right to some extent but a lot of stuff still remains as Bonus Action and that doesn't solve the Shove issue either. I'd also just delete Hide ( Invisibility Exists ). No Complaints about the Million Bonuses on Dialogue Rolls you are getting now from Skills, Spells and Stats. You finally found a great use of the Friends Cantrip. I'd still change RESTING to TIME RESTRICTED COOLDOWN ( 1 hour maybe for long rests 30 min for short ) to balance Abuse. Remember RESTING is not the same as Camp Access. This is why i don't believe you should tie Cutscene/Mechanic Progression/Anything to RESTING. It's more like you should get a Forced Rest Cutscene that doesn't restore anything for Mindflayer/Dream Sequences or Give New Worm Powers and a "Special Cutscene" after using them X amount of times in Dialogue Checks. I believe tying rest to anything is bad game design unless you plan to implement an ACTUAL TIME SYSTEM with DAY and NIGHT Mechanics which would mean more Layers and Work for you.
Posted By: IrenicusBG3 Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 27/10/21 01:19 AM
Originally Posted by Zefhyr
Long time no see...

Glad to see it's ever the same problem here.
Fights still way to long and boring with lots of opponents.
crappy pathfinding of the team.
Yeah... Nostalgic.. or not.
One year and it's still the same beautiful but still trolly so-called BG successor.

Just... Have you heard about our lord and savior "Pathfinder Wotr". It's amazing they created a game with a pretty huge tactical fights available in RTwP and in turned-base mode.

In-cre-di-ble. How could they do that ? Must be witches.

Keep saying RTwP is impossible, it will be funny to read... maybe... one day.

I gave up asking for RTwP when I realized that Larian can barely translate a turn-based game into an turn-base game. Imagine what they would have done with RtWP.
Posted By: ash elemental Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 27/10/21 05:06 AM
Originally Posted by Zefhyr
Just... Have you heard about our lord and savior "Pathfinder Wotr". It's amazing they created a game with a pretty huge tactical fights available in RTwP and in turned-base mode.
There is nothing incredible in how buggy it is. Turn based some features straight up didn't work when I've played, so often a character would lose a turn trying to execute an action that didn't work. Rtwp was a mess, because even with the enemy a few steps away I'd get the "spinning around in place" bug, which happened when a character needs to sidestep an obstacle. Which due to the number of combatants in battles was most of the time.

Yes, the party controls in BG3 are terrible and the party pathfinding has issues, which makes moving a party annoying. It is by far one of the worst features in BG3. But then to give WotR as a positive example? Even with a full party control the pathfinding there is nonfunctional.
Posted By: Zefhyr Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 09/11/21 10:12 PM
Originally Posted by ash elemental
There is nothing incredible in how buggy it is. Turn based some features straight up didn't work when I've played, so often a character would lose a turn trying to execute an action that didn't work. Rtwp was a mess, because even with the enemy a few steps away I'd get the "spinning around in place" bug, which happened when a character needs to sidestep an obstacle. Which due to the number of combatants in battles was most of the time.

Yes, the party controls in BG3 are terrible and the party pathfinding has issues, which makes moving a party annoying. It is by far one of the worst features in BG3. But then to give WotR as a positive example? Even with a full party control the pathfinding there is nonfunctional.

Ho cutie. You had trouble with pathfinding in WoTR ? I didn't but ok.

So, wanna some others positive examples ?
WoTR is one but meh if you have trouble with pathfinding, not my business, I had no one but I wont argue about it it' would be pointless (and it's funny looking at the pathfinding of BG3).

Anyway, positive example of RTwP-games ? Let's go : kingmaker, BG1, BG2, BG ToB, Icewind Dale 1, Icewind Dale 2. Temple of elemental evil, tyranny, dragon age origins, all the neverwinter nights, kotor, pilars of eternity, deadfire, planescape torment, ...
So many great games here.

By the way, I just saw a post about the sex scene of minthara... What can I say ? No respect for the Lore of the dark elves. Just letting a freaking dark elve woman fucked in a so romantic and submissive way the first crappy male (who cares his species) around after ten days together.

I am... appelled.

BG3 is a joke as Larian is shameless about it.
Posted By: Wormerine Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 09/11/21 11:40 PM
Originally Posted by Zefhyr
Anyway, positive example of RTwP-games ? (...) Temple of elemental evil (...)
That's one I didn't play, but ain't ToEE turn based?
Posted By: JandK Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 09/11/21 11:51 PM
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Originally Posted by Zefhyr
Anyway, positive example of RTwP-games ? (...) Temple of elemental evil (...)
That's one I didn't play, but ain't ToEE turn based?

The old 2003 Troika Games ToEE was turn based.

And it was basically the best game ever, although it had to be modded by Co8 to keep it from crashing.
Posted By: Wormerine Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 10/11/21 03:49 PM
Originally Posted by JandK
And it was basically the best game ever, although it had to be modded by Co8 to keep it from crashing.
From what I heard it's super faithful implementation of DnD, with everything else being not great (aka. Tim Cain is great at systems, but need the other half for story/characters/quest design). Didn't play it myself yet - it's one of my few cRPG blindspots.
Posted By: JandK Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 10/11/21 04:14 PM
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Originally Posted by JandK
And it was basically the best game ever, although it had to be modded by Co8 to keep it from crashing.
From what I heard it's super faithful implementation of DnD, with everything else being not great (aka. Tim Cain is great at systems, but need the other half for story/characters/quest design). Didn't play it myself yet - it's one of my few cRPG blindspots.

Very faithful, yes. And a lot of work has gone into the game over the years with Co8 and Temple+

As far as story goes, it's based on the Gygax module of the same name. I'm biased because I hold that module dear, but for what it's worth, I love a lot of the characters, and I think the story is fairly classic.
Posted By: budleigh Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 11/11/21 08:46 AM
The larger battles may not be "too long" in the sense that they arrest momentum (because they are challenging and...fun?), but I absolutely do get fatigued waiting through a metric ton of turns. I start to zone out and spend less time thinking about my own moves. I'm a newb to this sort of thing, but it seems odd that there's literally no upper limit. I mean, a 5e battle with, what, 15-20 enemies? I don't think any meaty-enough turn-based combat can reasonably accommodate that. It's just thermodynamically not possible.

FWIW, I don't really fall on either side of the "AI takes too long" problem, but it is absolutely clear to me that it's still worth people reporting what they feel are issues with AI decision latency. Whether or not you think that Larian will optimize the AI (of course they will), the questions that are still open are "when?" and most importantly "to what extent?". Only if people continue to report that they FEEL that certain technical issues are impacting their time with the game will Larian be able to make informed decisions about those questions. In other words, I'm not sure there's any such thing as redundant feedback and it's counterproductive to spend time lambasting people for giving genuine feedback. It's the internet, we're not running out of real estate. Let people speak their minds.
Posted By: Ormgaard Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 13/11/21 04:05 PM
ON the contrary i think the battles are to short, ie way to easy. for battles to mean anything you need a challenge.
Posted By: Eddiar Re: Again, Battles are TOO long - 13/11/21 09:44 PM
For some reason I love the combat! Even the long ones!

I guess I am lucky.
© Larian Studios forums