Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 9 of 17 1 2 7 8 9 10 11 16 17
#341412 11/12/06 07:59 PM
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: Canada
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: Canada
OK...I really liked DD in its original form.

Things I want to see stay - the kitties, charms, the MUSIC

Things I'd love to see added...
1. Choices make a difference. Whether you're a fighter or a thief, or you're evil or good....what you do should have consequences
2. More non-combat options. Ok...my personal preference would to NOT have to kill all the animals that you ever come across. There's got to be another way to deal with wolves....but other options would be nice, too ... sneaking past enemies...charming your way in....seducing your way in...whatever..
3. Just more...of everything...the worst thing about DD was when you'd come to the border of the land and realize that no....you really couldn't keep going...I know, I know...you can't create an infinite game...I'm just wishing..LOL


"If I love you, what business is it of yours?" —Goethe—
#341413 11/12/06 08:02 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Larian Studios
Offline
Larian Studios
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
[color:"orange"]It shouldn't become that hard, just hard enough to be able to keep the fights challenging.[/color]

Your idea of challenging is my idea of carpal tunnel inducing tedium.

Micromanaging fights just breaks down a simple interaction and allows you to control it in more detail. It lets you do things during the fight, but doesn't add anything. You still essentially have the same combat you didn't find interesting to start with, but with a distraction (hitting buttons at the correct time) to keep you occupied.

Instead of breaking combat down into components I'd like to see it made more complex, so you couldn't just give a warrior the biggest sword he can lift, to swing at every opponent until it stops moving. Enemy AI, resistances, vulnerabilities, terrain, etc could all be tweaked to allow/force more strategic combat.


Anyway, since nobody is likely to change their mind, I'll just say I hope Larian comes up with a way to make combat more interesting without resorting to micromanaging it.

#341414 11/12/06 09:03 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: brokeTM
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: brokeTM
Quote

Your idea of challenging is my idea of carpal tunnel inducing tedium.


Raze, this is not personal. Did you have carpal tunnel syndrome playing DD or BD? It had a lot of clicking, moving mouse clicking, just because there was so plenty to do, to explore, to inspect, pick up, throw around.

Now obviously a point-click navigation won't really workf from what I've seen from the engine demo and screenshots. You'll be using wasd & mouse. In third person, it would be hard to do complex combat without auto-target, detailed navigation using wasd in 3rd person is tricky. What I'm getting at is that combat can be very simple and challenging at the same time, block when needed strike back vurnable foe's. For example WoW has this system, quite the best system I've played with in 3rd person (mmo)RPG's, one difference with what Lepel and I are getting at is that combat/spells will rather be performed by simple key-combinations (shift+ hold mouse1 = inferno) (run + mouse1 = beserk) (run + mouse 2 = shieldbash), and not the usual 1234567890 or F1 F2 F3... keys.

Personally I find it easier to use simple combo's than using the Function or numeric keys.

In 1st person, auto-target would be lame, and combat would involve many mouse/wrist movements.


It's one of these days...
#341415 11/12/06 09:09 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: brokeTM
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: brokeTM
Quote

Anyway, since nobody is likely to change their mind, I'll just say I hope Larian comes up with a way to make combat more interesting without resorting to micromanaging it.


Nobody needs to change his mind, this is a discussion on wishes. Not to conclude an agreement. Larian shall en should do what they wish, draw their own conclusions from this discussion.


It's one of these days...
#341416 11/12/06 10:29 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Larian Studios
Offline
Larian Studios
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
[color:"orange"]Raze, this is not personal.[/color]

No, just personal taste/preference.


[color:"orange"]Did you have carpal tunnel syndrome playing DD or BD?[/color]

No, though my wrist could be a little sore after longer playing sessions. Games that require a lot of mouse movement, right clicking or use of the arrow keys cause problems faster. However, going from one or two clicks per opponent to dozens would probably be an issue for me unless the number and frequency of enemy was cut back correspondingly.

Actually, with support for gamepads an active fighting system could be designed which would require less finger movement and a more natural hand position than a keyboard and mouse, so that could potentially offset some of what I consider the disadvantages.


[color:"orange"]In 1st person, auto-target would be lame, and combat would involve many mouse/wrist movements.[/color]

Another reason I don't like the first person perspective. There is generally little peripheral vision, so even just exploring requires a lot of mouse movement.


[color:"orange"]Nobody needs to change his mind, this is a discussion on wishes.[/color]

Perhaps that was poorly phrased on my part. I simply meant that since this is a matter of personal preference (not something you can usually change someone's mind about unless they have not yet formed a strong opinion) there isn't much point in me continuing the debate after I have explained my position. I just wanted to bow out of the discussion (unless someone comes up with a new take on it) by reiterating my objection to micromanaged combat, while acknowledging combat could be made more interesting than simply repeated clicking.

The way I said it the first time was much shorter. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" />

#341417 12/12/06 12:38 AM
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
member
Offline
member
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
Quote
In third person, it would be hard to do complex combat without auto-target, detailed navigation using wasd in 3rd person is tricky. What I'm getting at is that combat can be very simple and challenging at the same time, block when needed strike back vurnable foe's. For example WoW has this system, quite the best system I've played with in 3rd person (mmo)RPG's, one difference with what Lepel and I are getting at is that combat/spells will rather be performed by simple key-combinations (shift+ hold mouse1 = inferno) (run + mouse1 = beserk) (run + mouse 2 = shieldbash), and not the usual 1234567890 or F1 F2 F3... keys.

Personally I find it easier to use simple combo's than using the Function or numeric keys.

In 1st person, auto-target would be lame, and combat would involve many mouse/wrist movements.

Try Rakion (from softnyx, its free but you can buy benefits if you want) if you have the time. (and feel like it)
It isn't a RPG but it has a somewhat more complex fighting system (without auto-target) in third person. So if you swing a sword or another weapon and it misses its your own fault.
But this game is all about timing and learning about the enemys attacks (and the delay time of their attacks). It might not be an ideal fighting system for a single player game. So don't think I would want a fighting system like that in the game. But I'd prefer it over the gothic 3 or oblivion fighting system.

I find it easier to use simple combos too, thats why I wanted them to be customizable since I know this is different for everyone.

And imo 1st person would be lame, auto-target or not. (but the third person view available in oblivion was even lamer as its 1st person view)


There is no spoon !
#341418 12/12/06 01:10 AM
Joined: Jan 2004
Location: England
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2004
Location: England
Third person view would be better, as it gives better all round vision in towns (heavily populated) and can help general exploring in forest areas or hilly terrain.

The combat system needs to be simple but effective, requiring some thought regarding what attacks works best for a given situation. And the same with any skill trees that can be persued.


Faith is believing in something you know isn't true
#341419 12/12/06 02:27 AM
Joined: Apr 2005
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Apr 2005
I fully agree with most of what Raze has written, except that first person perspective sucks for RPGs. I liked it in SW:KotOR – however, this game often had relatively narrow levels that were easy to explore. If Larian creates a big world in its next RPG, I'd also prefer not having to look left and right all of the time just to make sure I don't miss some detail.

To the proponents of an "active combat" system: In <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/div.gif" alt="" />, warriors could e.g. use their special attack, boomerang weapon throws, poisoned weapons, shadow warriors, jumps in front of their enemies, and several special arrows. That's not as many options as a mage had (though attack spells weren't that numerous, either), and you could win without using any of those options, but some variation during combat was possible, if you were willing to learn and use it.

Wouldn't some more special attacks along that line be better than having to initiate every single block and quicker or mightier blows with a click (or even several clicks)? Especially if some enemies were resistant to some special attacks or clever enough to counter them? They might also be vulnerable to some attacks, just like they are to some kinds of magic, and of course the better ones would also use those special attacks to their advantage. If your character was good enough, you could still win by just starting combat with a click (and maybe healing yourself), but using the special attacks cleverly could give you quite an advantage, so that combat ended faster or you won fights that you still couldn't win without using special skills.

To me, this sounds much more interesting than the "active combat" systems proposed above. And if some useful special attacks are only available at higher levels, there's an incentive to change your tactics now and then, resulting in a lower chance of combat becoming repetitive.

#341420 12/12/06 03:15 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
I think the traditional 'overhead view' perspective as used in Baldur's Gate is the best one for RPGs.


Please click the banner...
#341421 12/12/06 06:15 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
One idea to make combat more strategic: potions aren't instantaneous. In Diablo II, drinking a potion slowly replenished your health/mana over a matter of seconds. In Dungeons & Dragons drinking a potion prevents you from attacking and defending. Personally, I like the second idea better. Drinking a potion requires you at least put your hand to your mouth for a second, causing you to lose any defense provided by your weapon (or a fraction of your dexterity.)

Some opponents could have disposable resources as well. Just when you think the mini-boss is about to die, health potion! An enemy wizard may have limited mana. To prevent players simply dodging attacks until their mana is drained, a wizard will remember which spells are effective. If you dodge three fireballs in a row, he won't bother trying that again unless you're in close quarters. If you continue to dodge them in close quarters, he'll save his mana for protection spells.

Limited types of damage. The twenty-odd damage types in Beyond Divinity were useless. Most were identical, just painted a different colour. Keep it down to 2 or 3 physical damage types and 3 to 5 additional types. Then you have a decent chance of being resistant to something. Why waste money or skill points deflecting a damage that you only encounter from 1 out of every 20 monsters? Also, have each additional damage type be unique in some way. Fire is wide, poison lasts, electricity is powerful, water can be critically damaging, wind knocks you back, earth is magically induced physical damage, etc.

With the thoughts jumping around on the combat system, whatever system is used needs to incorporate equally interesting physical and magical combat, while using the character's abilities rather than the players. My thoughts: click on a opponent to target them. Melee or ranged combat is automatic with the character attacking and deflecting and dodging blows. Special abilities and spells are a mouse-click or keyboard-key away. Larger monsters could have different sections to attack, possibly with a weakness.

With skills, try to balance the number of passive and active skills for each "class" of character. Often, fighters end up with a hoard of passive skills, requiring little interaction, and wizards with more active skills than they can ever hope to use. Different melee attack styles could be active skills. Have passive skills that suppliment a broad range of magic skills and let a wizard specialise. Also, skills that become obsolete are a waste. I'd rather see a fire bolt grow into a flaming inferno over 20 skill levels (some perhaps from augmenting passive skills) than have to dump the fire bolt in favour of a fire ball, then a flaming inferno. Any spell can potentially be the most powerful spell.

To prevent repeatative and sleepy combat, have opponents change their tactics from time to time. An orc may rush in with a powerful attack, may may resort to defensive or dirty fighting when things don't bode well to him.

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

#341422 12/12/06 07:12 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Larian Studios
Offline
Larian Studios
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
[color:"orange"]I'd rather see a fire bolt grow into a flaming inferno over 20 skill levels (some perhaps from augmenting passive skills) than have to dump the fire bolt in favour of a fire ball, then a flaming inferno. Any spell can potentially be the most powerful spell.[/color]

In this case, it would be nice if you were still able to cast the lower level spell even after it gets upgraded, to conserve mana fighting weaker opponents. This could be done by putting skill points into a category (ie Fire) to activate each spell at the appropriate level.

More flexible, and more original, would be to do a straight upgrade of the spell, but to allow it to be cast at partial strength (which could also shorten the casting time). Perhaps casting a spell at higher than full strength could do more damage, but also do physical damage to the caster, and add a time penalty before mana would start regenerating (or another spell could be cast). Depending on the proficiency with that particular spell (perhaps based on the number of times it has been cast), the higher a mage tries to overreach their skill level the higher the chance the spell will misfire (doing damage to the caster, but not the enemy).

#341423 12/12/06 07:33 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: brokeTM
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: brokeTM
on spells/magic:

Maybe something more general first, I prefer to see less enemies at once, really beeing attacked by a whole horde of Orcs, are you a mage or warrior, is quite odd. You should never be able to defend from that. You better be carefull and don't flee from one combat into another.

That said, spells should overall be more powerfull, but more consuming in time/mana. A meteor strike should either instant kill, or leave the target stunned, knocked down. Giving the mage a chance to finish him off. With melee combat or maybe a less powerfull spell. There should be a reasonable mana regeneration for this to work. Also to make it little more challenging, some spells would not be able to perform while moving, casting an powerfull meteorstrike wouldn't but a firebolt would. Having the mage to use the right skills in the right time. use a firebolt to lure a distant enemy, charge a meteorstrike and hit the target. If you lure more targets you better start running and keep using the firebolt spell. Aside from how combat is controlled.


It's one of these days...
#341424 12/12/06 11:27 AM
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
member
Offline
member
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
Quote

To the proponents of an "active combat" system: In <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/div.gif" alt="" />, warriors could e.g. use their special attack, boomerang weapon throws, poisoned weapons, shadow warriors, jumps in front of their enemies, and several special arrows. That's not as many options as a mage had (though attack spells weren't that numerous, either), and you could win without using any of those options, but some variation during combat was possible, if you were willing to learn and use it.

Wouldn't some more special attacks along that line be better than having to initiate every single block and quicker or mightier blows with a click (or even several clicks)? Especially if some enemies were resistant to some special attacks or clever enough to counter them? They might also be vulnerable to some attacks, just like they are to some kinds of magic, and of course the better ones would also use those special attacks to their advantage. If your character was good enough, you could still win by just starting combat with a click (and maybe healing yourself), but using the special attacks cleverly could give you quite an advantage, so that combat ended faster or you won fights that you still couldn't win without using special skills.
To me, this sounds much more interesting than the "active combat" systems proposed above. And if some useful special attacks are only available at higher levels, there's an incentive to change your tactics now and then, resulting in a lower chance of combat becoming repetitive.

Did you read my post about the different difficulty settings and how that might be a solution ?
would those specials you suggested be better ? to you maybe, but I know it wouldnt be better for me.
I suggested to get customizable combos so you could put the skills on the numeric or function keys and I could activate them with mouseclicks.
Would this really be such a bad idea ? Put the difficulty setting on easy and only the harder enemys might require you to use these skills, put it on hard and you should use them often.


There is no spoon !
#341425 12/12/06 12:23 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
member
Offline
member
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
Quote
[color:"orange"]I'd rather see a fire bolt grow into a flaming inferno over 20 skill levels (some perhaps from augmenting passive skills) than have to dump the fire bolt in favour of a fire ball, then a flaming inferno. Any spell can potentially be the most powerful spell.[/color]

In this case, it would be nice if you were still able to cast the lower level spell even after it gets upgraded, to conserve mana fighting weaker opponents. This could be done by putting skill points into a category (ie Fire) to activate each spell at the appropriate level.

More flexible, and more original, would be to do a straight upgrade of the spell, but to allow it to be cast at partial strength (which could also shorten the casting time). Perhaps casting a spell at higher than full strength could do more damage, but also do physical damage to the caster, and add a time penalty before mana would start regenerating (or another spell could be cast). Depending on the proficiency with that particular spell (perhaps based on the number of times it has been cast), the higher a mage tries to overreach their skill level the higher the chance the spell will misfire (doing damage to the caster, but not the enemy).


I like the idea of proficiency (based on the number of times it has been cast).
But I would use that to let the fire bolt grow into a flaming inferno. (And you spend more points in the fire attribute the attack will get stronger.
And for example 20 points in the fire attribute will allow you to go to skill lvl 1 but not to lvl 2.
Like this someone that knows some basic fire magic wouldn't be able to use the same spell at the same lvl as someone that masters fire magic)
And if we would have a fire bolt growing into a flaming inferno, and not have them as seperate skills, imo it has to be done by proficiency.
I would still want to see more as one fire skill.
for example 4 skills (a minimum) that you get as you become a
-rookie (fire bolt->fire inferno)
-apprentice(maybe a fire shield, and a mana reduction bonus for the rookie skill)
-fire mage(meteor that grows into a fire rain that grows into a meteor storm)
-fire master (ability to let an enemy burst into flames and as you get more proficient at it the enemys within a certain range of your target and for a longer time)


There is no spoon !
#341426 12/12/06 04:01 PM
Joined: May 2004
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: May 2004
I would like a 3rd person perspective more then 1st person.

That said, anyone played mount and blade? Good fighting system wuithout much hard stuff/


#341427 12/12/06 11:37 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Warning: post isn't as bit as it looks. It's mostly quotes.

Quote
[color:"orange"]I'd rather see a fire bolt grow into a flaming inferno over 20 skill levels (some perhaps from augmenting passive skills) than have to dump the fire bolt in favour of a fire ball, then a flaming inferno. Any spell can potentially be the most powerful spell.[/color]

In this case, it would be nice if you were still able to cast the lower level spell even after it gets upgraded, to conserve mana fighting weaker opponents. This could be done by putting skill points into a category (ie Fire) to activate each spell at the appropriate level.

More flexible, and more original, would be to do a straight upgrade of the spell, but to allow it to be cast at partial strength (which could also shorten the casting time). Perhaps casting a spell at higher than full strength could do more damage, but also do physical damage to the caster, and add a time penalty before mana would start regenerating (or another spell could be cast). Depending on the proficiency with that particular spell (perhaps based on the number of times it has been cast), the higher a mage tries to overreach their skill level the higher the chance the spell will misfire (doing damage to the caster, but not the enemy).

Okay. Hold the button to charge the spell and release to cast it. You can release the button early to cast the spell at a lower level. Each level exponentially increases the mana cost and effect of the spell.

Level 1 fireball – 0.5 sec – 1 mana – 5 fire damage – 1 target
Level 4 fireball – 2.0 sec – 16 mana – 64 fire damage – 4 meter explosion
Level 7 fireball – 3.5 sec – 49 mana – 147 fire damage – 7 meter explosion
Level 10 fireball – 5.0 sec – 100 mana – 200 fire damage – 10 meter explosion

So high levels of this spell are great at defeating multiple opponents, but against a single powerful boss, you'd want a more focused spell like a Lightning Bolt. The lightning bolt would have better damage-per-mana each level, but would only ever hit one target.

If you want a delay (charge now, cast later), hold SHIFT as you charge it, let go of the button when it's charged and let go of SHIFT when you want to cast it.

Quote
That said, spells should overall be more powerfull, but more consuming in time/mana. A meteor strike should either instant kill, or leave the target stunned, knocked down. Giving the mage a chance to finish him off. With melee combat or maybe a less powerfull spell. There should be a reasonable mana regeneration for this to work. Also to make it little more challenging, some spells would not be able to perform while moving, casting an powerfull meteorstrike wouldn't but a firebolt would. Having the mage to use the right skills in the right time.

I like that!

Quote
I like the idea of proficiency (based on the number of times it has been cast).

While it makes sense, I've rarely seen this done well in a game. It seems to either force the player to specialise or gives them too much freedom. I remember spending hours in Quest For Glory simply throwing rocks so I could get perfect throwing skill. Proficiency gives players the opportunity to specialise in everything, which is an oxymoron.

Quote
But I would use that to let the fire bolt grow into a flaming inferno. (And you spend more points in the fire attribute the attack will get stronger.
And for example 20 points in the fire attribute will allow you to go to skill lvl 1 but not to lvl 2.

To make proficiency work, you cannot gain more than 20 points (maybe 30) until you buy skill level 1, after which the cap increases another 20 points. This forces you to use what you have learned before you can gain the next level, and also prevents lower level character simply training to become demi-gods by requiring them to gain levels to gain the skills needed to continue their training.

Quote
I would still want to see more as one fire skill.
for example 4 skills (a minimum) that you get as you become a
-rookie (fire bolt->fire inferno)
-apprentice(maybe a fire shield, and a mana reduction bonus for the rookie skill)
-fire mage(meteor that grows into a fire rain that grows into a meteor storm)
-fire master (ability to let an enemy burst into flames and as you get more proficient at it the enemys within a certain range of your target and for a longer time)

I like that!

One thing I found silly in Diablo II is that you only need 1 level of a lower skill to open unlimited training in a higher skill. How can a scorcer learn to rain fire from the heveans, yet she can barely warm a kettle to make a cup of tea?

So a character can have several proficiencies, each with a maximum. Every skill requires you have a certain score in one or more proficiencies, and it increases the maximum of those proficiencies. For example:

Fire Bolt
Level 1 – requires 20 fire proficiency – +20 fire limit
Level 2 – requires 40 fire proficiency – +20 fire limit
Level 3 – requires 60 fire proficiency – +20 fire limit
...
Wall of Fire
Level 1 – requires 50 fire proficiency – +30 fire limit
Level 2 – requires 100 fire proficiency – +30 fire limit
Level 3 – requires 150 fire proficiency – +30 fire limit
...
Immolate
Level 1 – requires 200 fire proficiency – +150 fire limit
...

Say the fire limit starts at 30. If you train all the way, you can learn Fire Bolt 1, increasing the limit to 50. At next level-up, further training could get you Wall of Fire 1 or Fire Bolt 2. If you take Wall of Fire 1, the limit isn't increased enough to learn Wall of Fire 2. You require further study in lesser fire spells before this is an option.

In the case of Immoate 1, this can be learned after extensive training in just Fire Bolt 9, or training over a wider range of fire spells.

Have I just forced people to specialise? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/suspicion.gif" alt="" />

#341428 13/12/06 03:35 AM
Joined: Apr 2005
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Apr 2005
[color:"orange"]Did you read my post about the different difficulty settings and how that might be a solution ?[/color]

Yes, but I don't like the idea of connecting the difficulty setting to "active combat". If I don't want a system that requires clicks for every block, quick or mighty blow, this doesn't mean I want easy fights. Perhaps an "active combat" option (in addition to the difficulty setting) would be a solution. If it's set to "off", the character continues to fight and block automatically after combat is initiated, just special skills are triggered by pressing a key or clicking. When set to "on", you control every swing, slash, block and stab of your character. But it doesn't mean enemies have more or less hit points, better or worse fighting stats etc.

[color:"orange"]I suggested to get customizable combos so you could put the skills on the numeric or function keys and I could activate them with mouseclicks.
Would this really be such a bad idea ? Put the difficulty setting on easy and only the harder enemys might require you to use these skills, put it on hard and you should use them often.[/color]

Having to use "active combat" just against hard enemies would be a bad idea, since players who don't train "active combat" against weaker enemies would quite likely face problems using it against hard enemies - compared to those who always use it and are well-trained in using it. If people don't like the "active combat" system, it shouldn't be forced on them, not even in a few fights.

[color:"orange"]I like the idea of proficiency (based on the number of times it has been cast).[/color]

I've not seen a game where this idea was implemented in a balanced and interesting way. It usually rewards those who are willing to either train without any enemy being present or to use overpowered spells on weak enemies for training purposes - which, by the way, is especially strange in the case of priestly characters; invoking godly might for training purposes seems like an abuse of this power to me. More often than not, a proficiency system encourages needless repetition. I can imagine a proficiency system that only counts using a spell or skill if it has been activated in a useful way (e.g. in a fight against enemies of equal or higher level), but I guess this would be difficult to implement, especially for the non-combat spells and skills.

[color:"orange"]Hold the button to charge the spell and release to cast it. You can release the button early to cast the spell at a lower level. Each level exponentially increases the mana cost and effect of the spell.[/color]

I like the idea of connecting casting times, mana, damage and radius to the time a key or button has been pressed. But if there are 10 fireball levels, how many levels are there going to be for non-combat spells? In Divine Divinity, having 5 levels of Wizard's Sight is a waste of skill points compared to having 5 levels of a combat spell. If Larian can't think of a good way to increase a spell's effects, that spell should simply have a lower maximum level or even just one level. Another example is Fade from Sight: Having level 5 is only useful if you stay invisible for some time; if you just want to turn invisible for a second or two during combat, you're better off having level 1. In a system with 10 fireball levels, any invisibility spell should have several levels as well, so it can't be mastered spending just 1 skill point, but that means the effects should somehow become better, apart from a lower mana consumption rate.

#341429 13/12/06 05:07 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Quote
[color:"orange"]Hold the button to charge the spell and release to cast it. You can release the button early to cast the spell at a lower level. Each level exponentially increases the mana cost and effect of the spell.[/color]

I like the idea of connecting casting times, mana, damage and radius to the time a key or button has been pressed. But if there are 10 fireball levels, how many levels are there going to be for non-combat spells? In Divine Divinity, having 5 levels of Wizard's Sight is a waste of skill points compared to having 5 levels of a combat spell. If Larian can't think of a good way to increase a spell's effects, that spell should simply have a lower maximum level or even just one level. Another example is Fade from Sight: Having level 5 is only useful if you stay invisible for some time; if you just want to turn invisible for a second or two during combat, you're better off having level 1. In a system with 10 fireball levels, any invisibility spell should have several levels as well, so it can't be mastered spending just 1 skill point, but that means the effects should somehow become better, apart from a lower mana consumption rate.

Spells like Invisibility or Resist Elements can have multiple levels. They could work like offensive spells: longer casting bring exponentially longer or larger results. Invisibility 2 will last long enough for you escape combat. Invisibility 6 will give you great advantage in a fight. Invisibility 10 will let you wonder through the enemy keep unseen, letting you find the weapon that exploits their weakness in safety.

Similarly for Resist Elements, let them charge it up. Sure, most times you'll charge it up fully before casting, but what if you're ambushed by a wizard who immediately starts casting a Fireball? You only have time to half-charge Resist Elements before he throws the fireball or suffer the full wrath of his flames.

Any defensive spell should have the risk of you being vulnerable while you cast it, but with worthy benefits. The same goes for drinking potions.

As for Wizard's Sight, extra levels are pointless, so it may be worth while to cap it at level 1. Perhaps broaden Wizard's Sight to improve vision in several ways: longer sight in the open and in darkness, and within 25% of your improved sight range you can see through walls, see invisible objects, and see through illusions. Each level improves the duration and range of the vision. Would that be worth additional skill points? Other one-level skills could be given a broader effect to make them worthy of additional skill points.

#341430 13/12/06 08:01 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: brokeTM
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: brokeTM
On spells,

Maybe this could be an option, in combination with proficiency you would have several "elements" a caster can use. There are offcourse fire, ice/water, air, earth and electricity. A caster needs to learn the secrets of one of these elements to be able to use them, let's say in the beginning of the game a teacher wishes to teach you one of these secrets for free, later magician teachers will ask a fee, the more of the elements you learn the bigger the fee. This way the caster can learn whatever elements he wants and train them (proficiency) But mastering all of them would take lots of time, training and money.

Now, a caster could only activly wield one element at a time: a passive skill that needs activation. There are also a standard set of spells that can be applied to the active element. These could be, Bolt (quick strike), , Ball (has splash damage), blast (sprays the element (inferno, chainlightning)), apply (Imolate, freeze...) Shower (meteors, ligthning storm, hurricane, snowstorm), with some deviations. These skills come avaible if a certain % of proficiency is reached.

In melee combat a similar system, depending on what weapon you equip the proficiency will rise, unlocking the weapons special abilities. You'll also need to learn the weapons specialisation to be able to use the special skills for it. When equiping a weapon without the specialisation, your proficiency will increase at a much lower rate.

Profiency increament would also be dependant on your level, while you still gain experience in the classic way, so you won't be "grinding" for proficiency.


It's one of these days...
#341431 13/12/06 09:20 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
Quote
Another example is Fade from Sight: Having level 5 is only useful if you stay invisible for some time; if you just want to turn invisible for a second or two during combat, you're better off having level 1. In a system with 10 fireball levels, any invisibility spell should have several levels as well, so it can't be mastered spending just 1 skill point, but that means the effects should somehow become better, apart from a lower mana consumption rate.


If you are playing a warrior, FFS is actually one of the best spells in the game and you would absolutely want it at top level.

The warrior's special move is a non-targetting attack, so does not break the invisibility, and the combination of the two is the easiest way to take down Josaria in the game <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

And yes, working that out came as a huge relief to me after who knows how many deaths at her hands <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />


Please click the banner...
Page 9 of 17 1 2 7 8 9 10 11 16 17

Moderated by  Bvs, ForkTong, Larian_QA, Lar_q, Lynn, Macbeth, Raze 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5