Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 6 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Oct 2006
F
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
F
Joined: Oct 2006
1 - Journal : Isn't this partially implemented through the meta quest Source Hunter Diary or something? For having all information summarize for you and all hints added, I disagree, it's pointless streamlining, you refuse make simple mental links and few simple clicks when it's where is the fun. At lot of work not worthing it.

2 - Action bar : Yep, agree.

3 : Repair All: Agree. Identify All, pointless, you should identify your items more often, as if there was plenty drops to identify.

4 - Sneak all chained : I disagree I need a special command not that this is forced and it forces me unchain, sneak re chain.

5 : The problem is more that when you switch a character the player bartering side is reset, that is tedious and pointless. Particularly because switch a character changes nothing, it's character that initiated the talk that is used to evaluate the bartering.

6 - Walk on map : Disagree, Baldur's Gate solution better, double click on map move the cam to the location.

7 - Filter by type : Agree.

9 - Items comparison in shops : Looks like your suggestion is implemented.

10 - Don't allow sell quests items : Looks like your suggestion is implemented for sell, but perhaps not for items drop. Sticky items is dangerous, for example the dead sheep is a quest items and very heavy, makes it sticky can be very bad.

16 - Disable multiple KS pets : WTH? GIVE ME THAT DAM PET, TWO WEEKS AND STILL NOT HAVING IT? WTH??? Larian has break the limits and gone into the unacceptable for those pets. sad

Last edited by Fend; 11/07/14 02:36 AM.
Joined: Dec 2013
R
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
R
Joined: Dec 2013
Originally Posted by Fend

Identify All, pointless


Not really. A lot of people just didn't want the hassle of picking out which is identified and which isn't in the inventory. There's no way to tell from a glance. Mouse-over just to check which is identified isn't efficient. It's optional convenience. Just because there's a self check out counter doesn't mean everyone needs it. But the option should be there.

Quote

4 - Sneak all chained : I disagree I need a special command not that this is forced and it forces me unchain, sneak re chain.


A simple CTRL+C to All Sneak should suffice.

As for my list of annoyances:
1. Can we have an adjustable font size for the chat log & in-game books?
It's too small. This applies to the books as well. Reading one of the in-game book first time I was shocked to find it was basically 3 page long because the letters are really small and can fit in fewer pages.

2. Can we have a better recipe list?
Copying it word for word is just not the right way. A revamp of the recipe books would be great too, since they're not worth a lot - why not just let it be 'consumed' upon use (just like combat skill books)? This may seem immersion breaking but it sure does seem the most elegant solution since my co-op partner gripes about not knowing which book has he read yet or not.

Joined: May 2014
J
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
J
Joined: May 2014
Originally Posted by Fend
1 - Journal : Isn't this partially implemented through the meta quest Source Hunter Diary or something? For having all information summarize for you and all hints added, I disagree, it's pointless streamlining, you refuse make simple mental links and few simple clicks when it's where is the fun. At lot of work not worthing it.

2 - Action bar : Yep, agree.

3 : Repair All: Agree. Identify All, pointless, you should identify your items more often, as if there was plenty drops to identify.

4 - Sneak all chained : I disagree I need a special command not that this is forced and it forces me unchain, sneak re chain.

5 : The problem is more that when you switch a character the player bartering side is reset, that is tedious and pointless. Particularly because switch a character changes nothing, it's character that initiated the talk that is used to evaluate the bartering.

6 - Walk on map : Disagree, Baldur's Gate solution better, double click on map move the cam to the location.

7 - Filter by type : Agree.

9 - Items comparison in shops : Looks like your suggestion is implemented.

10 - Don't allow sell quests items : Looks like your suggestion is implemented for sell, but perhaps not for items drop. Sticky items is dangerous, for example the dead sheep is a quest items and very heavy, makes it sticky can be very bad.

16 - Disable multiple KS pets : WTH? GIVE ME THAT DAM PET, TWO WEEKS AND STILL NOT HAVING IT? WTH??? Larian has break the limits and gone into the unacceptable for those pets. sad


1. I believe he specifically mentioned certain quest clues to be found in books, conversations, etc. that are not logged in any journal. They're subtle hints but things that would be nice to have documented so a player doesn't have to go sifting through the inventory system to find. It doesn't make the game simpler, it just deposits the information in a central location. It eliminates tedium.

2. I think everyone agrees on the action bar.

3. Why is identify all such a point of contention? It is the same process as repair all. If there was some specific in game mechanic or story concept that made identifying unique I would agree with you. But it is a simple check against your lore skill. I've frequently amassed quite a few items needing to be identified blowing through easier parts of the map. Identify all eliminates the tedious process of right clicking the item and highlighting identify repeatedly. And yes, there is a plethora of drops that need to be identified, multiple items per battle and/or chest opening.

4. Nothing wrong with the idea to sneak all characters chained. It's a nice idea since often I unchain my sneaking character anyway. If I want to do it en masse with chained characters it shouldn't be a laborious process.

5. The bartering system as a whole is very cumbersome and I believe designed with co-op in mind. I don't know if there will ever be an elegant solution to this. Though I would like shared gold for those players running a single player game. I run all my gold through my "barter" character anyway, why not just allow me to share gold and eliminate all the pointless transfers?

6. I don't get the issue with walk on map either. Perhaps we can find a middle ground. Left click on map allows a player to walk on it and right click centers the cam. If you want to place a marker use ctrl-left click.

7. More filters would be wonderful.

10. I've not had any issues with selling quest items as of yet, but a quest item should not be allowed to be sold. Especially if vendors will change their inventory every so often, resulting in that item lost forever.

Joined: Dec 2013
R
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
R
Joined: Dec 2013
A minor concern, playing Lone Wolf co-op with a friend and we both realize that the game gives the same amount of EXP regardless of party size. I wish this isn't the case cause we put ourselves at severe disadvantage already - and if any one of us died in combat, the fallen would not gain a single point of EXP.


Joined: Jun 2014
G
stranger
Offline
stranger
G
Joined: Jun 2014
Originally Posted by rk47
A minor concern, playing Lone Wolf co-op with a friend and we both realize that the game gives the same amount of EXP regardless of party size. I wish this isn't the case cause we put ourselves at severe disadvantage already - and if any one of us died in combat, the fallen would not gain a single point of EXP.



The general consensus seems to be that lonewolf is borderline cheat-mode, and co-op has a few advantages over single-player.

Joined: Dec 2013
R
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
R
Joined: Dec 2013
You mean two guys, working harder - with fewer AP pool and skill pool compared to party of 4 don't deserve more EXP for defeating an encounter?

Joined: Apr 2013
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Apr 2013
Originally Posted by rk47
You mean two guys, working harder - with fewer AP pool and skill pool compared to party of 4 don't deserve more EXP for defeating an encounter?
What "deserve" has to do with anything? EXP is experience, what you learn of it , not an arbitrary prize you "deserve"

Joined: Dec 2013
R
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
R
Joined: Dec 2013
Nope. Disagree.

Joined: Jun 2014
C
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
C
Joined: Jun 2014
Since there is no hard cap on experience (I finished the game at level 21), an experience bonus for lone wolf characters would allow them to reach a greater level than characters in a regular party. In my opinion this would only increase the disparity in power that exists between lone wolf and non lone wolf characters.

Joined: Dec 2013
R
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
R
Joined: Dec 2013
Disagree. Not even a valid concern.
You're saying almost as if Lone Wolf characters can lay the beat-down from the get-go compared to a 4 man who picked Madora and Jahan in starter town.

Describe to me how a 4 man party has serious disparity compared to two Lone Wolves.

Joined: Apr 2013
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Apr 2013
Originally Posted by rk47
Nope. Disagree.
Well now I'm curious, what does EXP stand for then? Expendability? Exp...ress? Expace? Because that's not how you write it

Joined: Feb 2014
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Feb 2014
Good post, LordCrash.

I like these quality of life suggestions, many of which, occurred to me as well during play.

Really enjoying the game, Larian. Cheers

Last edited by ChandlerL; 11/07/14 07:05 AM.
Joined: Apr 2011
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Apr 2011
@ rk; See, now the REAL problem surfaces. And instead of doing something rash to get around that, how about, like in Baldur's Gate and such, unidentified items get their own color. Or an icon on them, something able to make them quickly distinctable in the inventory without hovering over all.

THAT is a suggestion I would support, not identify all.

As for cooking books, I just open each and every new one I get. Then I don't need to wonder, or search heavily, or compare to the journal or anything. Only takes about 10s each time...

@ Joe, regarding 5. Since you can't simply make something "SP exclusive" (especially seeing there's drop-in MP). It needs to work for both SP and MP. The sollutions provided only work for SP. And are thus unsuitable for Original Sin. It's the nature of the beast.
When making suggestion one needs to keep such in mind. I know it can be difficult, but if you want to have more change for Larian to listen to you and implent your idea, you need a system that works SP *and* MP, and you can prove on paper it would work. And then there still would be the question of technical feasability.

Regarding 10... I am noticing I carry more and more parchments around, and vendors don't list them. The annoying thing being a large portion being either 1) broken, since no text. 2) intended to have no text, but since book items are unique and thus not stack. And somehow they needed to be blank parchments with "use to read" rather than sheets of paper that do stack and work the same crafting wise. Maybe one of my pet peeves. Can't stand "use to read" and it's simply non-functional.

Joined: Mar 2014
M
addict
Offline
addict
M
Joined: Mar 2014
Originally Posted by Hassat Hunter
@ rk; See, now the REAL problem surfaces. And instead of doing something rash to get around that, how about, like in Baldur's Gate and such, unidentified items get their own color. Or an icon on them, something able to make them quickly distinctable in the inventory without hovering over all.

THAT is a suggestion I would support, not identify all.


That would be a nice feature, but still wouldn't fix the issue I and some others have been raising of the reeeeediculously tedious repeated clicking process required to identify each individual item in the current implementation. I know you don't agree (and haven't since you and I first discussed this months ago wink ), but hopefully I (or probably someone smart instead) will mod the "repair all" and "identify all" fixes into the game - assuming Larian doesn't surprise us and make the changes in a patch (and I doubt they will).

Joined: Apr 2014
A
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
A
Joined: Apr 2014
Originally Posted by Hiver
What strawman i ever made exactly?
Are you capable of supporting a single of your statements with anything at all?


Originally Posted by Hiver
Several are mass market features that belong somewhere else.


There's the strawman argument, but it's not the only fallacy in that sentence. For starters, who decides what is a mass market feature? You? And even if you could state authoritatively that a certain feature is designed to appeal to the masses instead of it being merely a smart design decision, who's to say that said feature is detrimental to this particular game? You never explained why.

The other type of fallacies are self-evident in my deconstruction of your points (more below). Read a book on critical thinking if you have trouble spotting them.

Originally Posted by Hiver
How disparingly the term is used - rightly so - has nothing to do with your statements that some specific people assumed hand holding and streamlining are bad and never objectively analyzed the suggestions.


I never mentioned specific people, so put more words in my mouth please. You yourself routinely dismiss ease of use and quality of life suggestions without giving them much if any thought, if your faulty explanations are anything to go by. Some examples:

Originally Posted by Hiver
Most of them heavily break the fourth wall only for your personal laziness ease of use issues


Why are his ease of use suggestions indicative of "personal laziness"? Would having to click each character individually to move (ie. no linking feature) benefit the game (it would increase the characters' "individuality" which you seem to prize)? You didn't provide a real argument. You also never explained how they broke the fourth wall. Let's look at some of what you did attempt to explain:

Originally Posted by Hiver
I dont want to repair all and identify all. I want to choose what and when. By a single character that can do it. I want to take the item from another character inventory and transfer it to the one with enough lore and have him other identify them and then give them back.


What the hell kind of argument is this? Why should anyone care what you want? In a later post you made an attempt at a real argument, so let's have a look at that:

Originally Posted by Hiver

Quote

Since this is a single player game I see no reason not to allow a player to experience the game as they wish within certain constraints (I.E. the game becomes so easy as to eliminate any challenge or sense of discovery whatsoever).

Where in this sentence is the internal coherence and consistency of the setting, the story, the game and its specific gameplay? Where is the importance of the world and characters in it compared to those cheap metagaming desires of two spoiled, devolved lard-asses?

How does one character identify items others are holding exactly?
How does one character fixes all items at once?


How is a character able to carry dozens of two-handed axes on his person? Answer: it's not explained how; it's a compromise for the sake of gameplay, as is the ability to transfer items between characters that are several meters apart. Is the game better for it? Yes, as the interplay between items is a major component of this game and thus you need to be able to carry an inordinate amount of items.

The question you need to ask yourself regarding simultaneous item identification and repair is also: would the game be better for it, and why? While I'm also a fan of games that have consistent mechanics (Path of Exile bosses are susceptible to the same effects that regular players are, including stuns, though that might have changed in the months that I've not touched the game), if enforcing that leads to repetitive, mindless gameplay, then it's not worth it.

My suggestion to the OP regarding this issue is the ability to drag and drop an item from a character's inventory to another character in the game world, triggering a context menu which allowed the latter to identify or repair said item (which would never leave the original player's inventory). Would part of this process be left unexplained? Yes. Would it be a satisfactory compromise to help attenuate the repetitive, extremely tedious prospect of identifying and repairing dozens of items in one sitting? That is the question a smart designer should ask himself. That is the question a critical thinker would ask himself.

Originally Posted by Hiver
No. Walk "yourself". Maps are actually small. In case there are enemies around this could lead into all sorts of problems and ultimately into a RTS movement over map. Horrible suggestion.


As the OP mentioned, this would be particularly useful in traversing already explored areas. If a player chose to travel to no-man's land, then he should live with the consequences of his choice should his party happen to stumble upon the AI, initiating combat. Whether or not he would stand and fight or choose to use the flee option would be another choice he would have to make. There would be no need for "RTS movement over map" any more than there is now. Did you even think this through?

As I explained earlier, this suggestion would allow us to do more interesting things when back-tracking on the map (such as organizing the inventory, reading notes, etc.), which is infinitely preferable to having to baby-sit your characters through terrain which has already been cleared, or worse, panning the camera until you find the spot you want to travel to which is what I've seen a few twitch streamers do.

Originally Posted by Hiver
Larian, did you hear that?
Yer game there is like an excel sheet to this fine specimen of devolution and so you need to streamline the shit out of it.


What's wrong with streamlining, if it's done to better the game?

Let's proceed to pick apart the rest of your reply.

Originally Posted by Hiver

Quote
The term hand-holding is commonly used to describe almost any game feature which isn't absurdly hardcore,

err... can you actually prove that with anything at all, instead of just claiming it is so?


This is not exactly archaic knowledge. If I linked a few examples you'd just call them isolated cases. Google "no respawn penalty hand-holding" and see for yourself.

Originally Posted by Hiver

Quote
and doesn't always relate to giving directions in a game. Quest text too descriptive? Hand-holding. Maps? Hand-holding. Free respawns? Hand-holding.

No, thats not what hand-holding means and this is the first time i ever hear or see anyone claiming that quest text that is "too descriptive" is considered hand-holding - by some unknown entities.


Same goes for maps.

Feel free to point me to a single evidence that anyone ever said that a map in a game that should have a map is hand-holding.

But i have to admit i dont really get the term of "free respawns" in relation to our discussion or OS.

Are there respawns that are not free? wut?


See above.

Originally Posted by Hiver
Quote
The truth is, what one person deems to be hand-holding might seem hardcore to someone else.

How is that a "truth"?

Any evidence to support that claim or is it just a stray thought that just fired off?


See above.

Originally Posted by Hiver
Quote

Oh, and by your rationale, a spell that pointed a player to the next quest (I believe there is such a spell in Skyrim), is internally coherent and thus ceases to be hand-holding.


No, thats not internally coherent feature because you see... it is not enough just to throw something inside the game to make it internally coherent. You thinking and saying that is somehow my rationally is a strawman argument.

You never asked me for explanation about that. You claim that as if it sa fact you somehow know.

To be internally coherent a feature must make sense in the setting as it is, in the story and the overall game world and its lore or everyday life and reality.

In Skyrim, if you really want to mention that particular game, there were several hand-holding features for the brainless masses.

And masses hated it. Atleast a lot of players did.

The compass that was showing absolutely everything, every place, every location, every cave, hut and place of interest and WITHOUT which you could not find any of the locations various quests told you to go to or find or discover - was one of the biggest such features.

Hated even by regular fans and players of the game, let alone any old-school players who chanced upon that game or tried it.

One of the first mods that came out on Nexus, removing various functions from it was one of the most downloaded mods, probably still is.

Of course it was impossible to remove it completely because NO OTHER WAY to find anything in the game existed. So most people would just disable it showing various places of interest - so they could atleast keep some sense of discovery for themselves.

While engaged quest would still need to be shown, otherwise you would never find them.

Some people played without it completely but those were just the usual masochists.


The spell you mentioned only points out the direction to selected quest and it is basically just another, secondary quest compass, only superficially in the form of a spell. That does not make it internally coherent or consistent because no one else uses that in that whole world.

Its a player only hand-holding gimmick. It exists only for the players benefit. Doesnt affect anything else at all and its not connected to anything else in the setting-game world-lore-everyday life or anything else.


I concede the point; that particular spell is incongruous with the rest of the game and I should have asked for your particular definition of internal coherence.

Originally Posted by Hiver
You never said anyone made that argument?

And you say that in reply to a quote of yours where you claim that someone did exactly that?

Quote
the argument "they were aiming for an old school feel therefore no hand-holding!" is a poor one because that would only make sense if old games were perfect.


And you say you never said that?


Point to me where I said that someone in this thread made that argument. I just explained "the argument"; I did not claim that said argument was made by anyone in specific or even originated in this thread, although in retrospect I perhaps should have made that clear. As an early access adherent, I read many posts in the beta forum that explained issues away under the "it's an old school game" umbrella. You've been here longer than I have, and busy by the looks of it, so you must know what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by Hiver
Right, at this point i will stop.
Because bashing intellectually challenged people isnt really cool thing to do.

And there is nothing else we need to discuss any further.


No, at this point you just demonstrated that you are unwilling to admit to your mistakes, which is why you did not address the points where you were made to look a fool. Shameless and transparent, but hardly surprising.

Last edited by artemis42; 11/07/14 07:02 PM.
Joined: May 2014
J
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
J
Joined: May 2014
Originally Posted by Hassat Hunter

@ Joe, regarding 5. Since you can't simply make something "SP exclusive" (especially seeing there's drop-in MP). It needs to work for both SP and MP. The sollutions provided only work for SP. And are thus unsuitable for Original Sin. It's the nature of the beast.
When making suggestion one needs to keep such in mind. I know it can be difficult, but if you want to have more change for Larian to listen to you and implent your idea, you need a system that works SP *and* MP, and you can prove on paper it would work. And then there still would be the question of technical feasability.


I understand that many of the game concepts were designed with multiplayer in mind. If there was a single player only option that disabled drop in multiplayer I think some of these ideas would be more feasible, namely shared gold. Though the time to create that option is probably not worth it.

The other ideas like repair all and identify all could be implemented quite elegantly with the chain system perhaps. In that when you select repair all it will only repair the items of characters chained to your own. This keeps the concept of two separate characters with their own inventory, and eliminates some of the tedium of transferring a bunch of items off of your hired help.

Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
veteran
OP Offline
veteran
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
Originally Posted by JoeBart
Originally Posted by Hassat Hunter

@ Joe, regarding 5. Since you can't simply make something "SP exclusive" (especially seeing there's drop-in MP). It needs to work for both SP and MP. The sollutions provided only work for SP. And are thus unsuitable for Original Sin. It's the nature of the beast.
When making suggestion one needs to keep such in mind. I know it can be difficult, but if you want to have more change for Larian to listen to you and implent your idea, you need a system that works SP *and* MP, and you can prove on paper it would work. And then there still would be the question of technical feasability.


I understand that many of the game concepts were designed with multiplayer in mind. If there was a single player only option that disabled drop in multiplayer I think some of these ideas would be more feasible, namely shared gold. Though the time to create that option is probably not worth it.

The other ideas like repair all and identify all could be implemented quite elegantly with the chain system perhaps. In that when you select repair all it will only repair the items of characters chained to your own. This keeps the concept of two separate characters with their own inventory, and eliminates some of the tedium of transferring a bunch of items off of your hired help.


Absolutely.

The chain/link mechanic could be the key to many usability improvments without getting in conflict with the co-op design. I personally think that Larian maybe put too little thought into what could be made with the chain system or maybe they did but the technical implemenation was too hard/time-consuming before release. So far the link/chain only let your party members follow the controlled character in movement but it could be used for so much more like I suggested in my initial post. It's one of my hopes that Larian reconsider the chain system and its possible application for other elements besides movement now after release, with a little bit more time and calmness... smile


Edit: I also think that stuff like quest items and keys should be usable by every linked character. Everything else just leads to pointless inventory transfers all the time. The whole system imo only exists because of the co-op design and the clever use of the chain/link system would also improve on that point (besided eg shared gold). I mean, all the old isometric party RPGs (like the Infinty engine games) didn't distinguish between different party members. Gold, keys and stuff were always "group property" and not individual property. It makes sense in a co-op game, but then again the chain system could "fix" the issue for SP.

Last edited by LordCrash; 11/07/14 01:38 PM.

WOOS
Joined: Apr 2014
A
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
A
Joined: Apr 2014
Originally Posted by JoeBart
If there was a single player only option that disabled drop in multiplayer I think some of these ideas would be more feasible, namely shared gold. Though the time to create that option is probably not worth it.


There already is such a feature. It's the small gem above the minimap; click it, select "Nobody" and uncheck "LAN Connections". That effectively makes the game singleplayer.

Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
veteran
OP Offline
veteran
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
Originally Posted by artemis42
Originally Posted by JoeBart
If there was a single player only option that disabled drop in multiplayer I think some of these ideas would be more feasible, namely shared gold. Though the time to create that option is probably not worth it.


There already is such a feature. It's the small gem above the minimap; click it, select "Nobody" and uncheck "LAN Connections". That effectively makes the game singleplayer.


I thought you could also choose that right at the beginning of a game? There is a menu before you start a new game where you can choose between singleplayer and multiplayer...


WOOS
Joined: May 2014
J
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
J
Joined: May 2014
Originally Posted by LordCrash
Originally Posted by artemis42
Originally Posted by JoeBart
If there was a single player only option that disabled drop in multiplayer I think some of these ideas would be more feasible, namely shared gold. Though the time to create that option is probably not worth it.


There already is such a feature. It's the small gem above the minimap; click it, select "Nobody" and uncheck "LAN Connections". That effectively makes the game singleplayer.


I thought you could also choose that right at the beginning of a game? There is a menu before you start a new game where you can choose between singleplayer and multiplayer...


I was always under the impression that beginning a game by selecting single player still allowed drop in multiplayer. I could be wrong here though. I've only been playing single player and haven't toyed around with the red gem deal.

Page 6 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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