Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 53 of 61 1 2 51 52 53 54 55 60 61
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
Originally Posted by Sven_
That may have been DOS, but I don't see it here. Quite the contrary, the (hand-placed) unique items/loot seems reasonably rare. That is, compared to other modern games, obviously BG1 is an entirelly different beast of its own (one I miss very much).

Subjective opinion. Let's raise some specifics to make this more tangible, but let me start by saying hand-placed loot does not mean it's not excessive loot in the game. This is a common criticism on this board as well as DOS2, so it is a repeating pattern for a reason.

I take too many issues with what I perceive as a loot/gear focus to address in detail here, but let me quickly summarize the gist of it:

1. There is no real/realistic limitation to the amount of loot the party can carry. Combine this with an excess of loot, hand-placed or not, means the player is incentivised into compulsive "pack-muleing" lest you don't raise enough money to be extorted by the next trader. This permissiveness is not realistic and detracts from immersion.
2. The alternative is robbing every trader blind. The traders tend to have the best gear/money, and as per DOS2 pickpocketing is the most powerful "skill" in the game by far. This completely destroys any risk vs. reward mechanisms otherwise found in the game.
3. Almost all the magical items are "hand-placed" Larian homebrew and quite overpowered, especially for such a low-level setting. They cause all kinds of class imbalances and helps trivialize the content (as do the super permissive, anti-immersive rest mechanic as do the easy advantage as do the elemental effects). Ie. the 18 int headband which allows for metagaming character builds dumping int, the magic missile amulet doubling the damage, the staff providing +5 average spell attack rolls and 1-4 dex saves. The love-child of your namesake at Larian, is the Wizard - and it shows! wink
4. Despite arguably overpowered magical items being readily available, decent non-magical medium or heavy armor don't even exist in the game (outside Lae'Zel). Maybe to offset the D&D RNG problem - high AC makes for more misses and can potentially unbalance a low-level setting. Still this breaks the internal realism of Forgotten Realms and is detrimental for my immersion.
5. Gear becomes so important that it detracts focus from character and character build. Some of the gear is already arguably character defining. And this is available from level 2 onwards.


Last edited by Seraphael; 07/11/20 02:32 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
G
stranger
Offline
stranger
G
Joined: Oct 2020
Larians opinion that 5e combat is boring and needs to be improved upon to be fun, speaks volumes of the game design that led to threads like this one.

Last edited by grip; 07/11/20 02:30 PM. Reason: grammar
Joined: Oct 2020
T
addict
Offline
addict
T
Joined: Oct 2020
I've said before but I'd like to reiterate that this game is the closest a CRPG has come to my experience with combat on tabletop campaigns. And yes, my tabletop group makes use of the environment and shoves at least as much as this game does....I'd say more, actually. I haven't really encountered a computer game that quite managed to feel right about things like this until now.

With all the comparison about Divinity I pulled up the copy my brother gifted me with and played a bit.....it didn't feel nearly as fun and I didn't really care about the companions, especially as most of them don't seem all that concerned with working together where as even the githyanki here is pushing teamwork and investigating our mutual situation. The story was a bit bleh too...but, granted...I only got through to the beach before I decided to put it up.

So far it feels like a mix of the escape from Irenicus's prison and bit of randomly wandering about the wilderness that BG1 starts you at.

Last edited by Thrythlind; 07/11/20 02:41 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
U
stranger
Offline
stranger
U
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Svalr
Wtf is with people on this forum being really immature then proceeding to accuse everyone who disagrees with them of being children?



Welcome to the internet. Try not to let the hate consume you.

Joined: Nov 2020
M
stranger
Offline
stranger
M
Joined: Nov 2020
+1

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Haters gonna hate. I really love what Larian has done so far. The environmental interactivity is wonderful and does make it feel more like an actual D&D ttrpg.

Joined: Oct 2020
T
addict
Offline
addict
T
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by xarallei
Haters gonna hate. I really love what Larian has done so far. The environmental interactivity is wonderful and does make it feel more like an actual D&D ttrpg.


Thank you! I keep wondering if my group is the only one that has players who immediately hone in on the nearest high ledge to yeet gnolls off of. Or stairwells to bounce villains down.

Joined: Mar 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2019
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
I just feels like the people who designed the combat didn't fully understand or appreciate D&D combat. Well, and we know this for a fact because Larian told us they didn't like D&D combat.

Did they say that? Or was it that they didn't like combat in previous D&D crpgs? I'm pretty sure it was the latter.

Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
I just feels like the people who designed the combat didn't fully understand or appreciate D&D combat. Well, and we know this for a fact because Larian told us they didn't like D&D combat.

Did they say that? Or was it that they didn't like combat in previous D&D crpgs? I'm pretty sure it was the latter.


This is the result of a number of threads being merged that I wish hadn't been merged. I get the desire to clean up but I tried to post in constructive feedback threads and avoid trolling threads and an unintended consequence of the merger is it harder to tell which comments are which.

To be clear, I'm all for the creative solutions -- pushing boulders, breaking beams, bringing down chandeliers. I like that they've incorporated sneaking and surprise.

What I don't want is repeat of DOS2 surface strategies and for those strategies to dominate and / or replace class features. I specifically want surface effects on cantrips to eliminated and the HP bloat / AC lowering to be changed and for barrels to be less common and weigh more. Throw the bottle of water, hit it with ray of frost cantrip and the enemies are all prone is the sort of thing I'm talking about. It's not a creative solution, it's standard tactic that relies on homebrew rules and is stronger than any class feature at that level.

I intend this as constructive criticism.

The interview with Swen has been posted many times but I can't find it right now. The upshot is that they made a game that followed the 5th ed rules, played it and didn't find it much fun. Then they started changing the rules until they found something fun

The "not fun" came down to "in 5th edition you miss often". So they lowered AC. They added height advantage. But this come from a misunderstanding. You use class features -- bless spells, bardic inspiration, true strike ect to be able to hit. Now with the changed rules a jump to higher level is a better way to get advantage than is properly using your cleric, bard and wizard in the first round.

If I can find the interview(s) I'll post it but I'm guessing others will beat me to it.

Joined: Oct 2020
R
addict
Offline
addict
R
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
I just feels like the people who designed the combat didn't fully understand or appreciate D&D combat. Well, and we know this for a fact because Larian told us they didn't like D&D combat.

Did they say that? Or was it that they didn't like combat in previous D&D crpgs? I'm pretty sure it was the latter.


This is the result of a number of threads being merged that I wish hadn't been merged. I get the desire to clean up but I tried to post in constructive feedback threads and avoid trolling threads and an unintended consequence of the merger is it harder to tell which comments are which.

To be clear, I'm all for the creative solutions -- pushing boulders, breaking beams, bringing down chandeliers. I like that they've incorporated sneaking and surprise.

What I don't want is repeat of DOS2 surface strategies and for those strategies to dominate and / or replace class features. I specifically want surface effects on cantrips to eliminated and the HP bloat / AC lowering to be changed and for barrels to be less common and weigh more. Throw the bottle of water, hit it with ray of frost cantrip and the enemies are all prone is the sort of thing I'm talking about. It's not a creative solution, it's standard tactic that relies on homebrew rules and is stronger than any class feature at that level.

I intend this as constructive criticism.

The interview with Swen has been posted many times but I can't find it right now. The upshot is that they made a game that followed the 5th ed rules, played it and didn't find it much fun. Then they started changing the rules until they found something fun

The "not fun" came down to "in 5th edition you miss often". So they lowered AC. They added height advantage. But this come from a misunderstanding. You use class features -- bless spells, bardic inspiration, true strike ect to be able to hit. Now with the changed rules a jump to higher level is a better way to get advantage than is properly using your cleric, bard and wizard in the first round.

If I can find the interview(s) I'll post it but I'm guessing others will beat me to it.


https://www.pcgamer.com/baldurs-gate-3-will-combine-the-best-of-divinity-and-dandd-5th-edition/

Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Here's one of the interviews. Not with one the quote I was looking for but it will do:

Quote
There are some things on the chopping block, however. It's an interpretation of D&D, specifically 5th Edition, because porting the core rules, which Larian tried to do, doesn't work. Or it works, Vincke clarifies, but it's no fun at all. One of the culprits is missing when you're trying to hit an enemy, and while the combat system has yet to be revealed, you can at least look forward to being able to smack people more consistently.

"You miss a lot in D&D—if the dice are bad, you miss," he says. "That doesn't work well in a videogame. If I do that, you're going to review it and say it's shit. Our approach has been implementing it as pure as we can, and then just seeing what works and what doesn't. Stuff that doesn't work, we start adapting until it does."


https://www.pcgamer.com/baldurs-gate-3-will-combine-the-best-of-divinity-and-dandd-5th-edition/

Joined: Oct 2020
V
member
Offline
member
V
Joined: Oct 2020
I still think that this is simply a consequence of different playerbases crashing, which was a predictable outcome since this Dev studio had to choose that name for a game based in the 5th edition of D&D.

So they chose that name to generate hype, and draw people that played and loved the game 20 years ago. They chose the current ruleset, because PnP is becoming quite the mainstream phenomenon now. They have good RPGs in their portfolio with unique mechanics that are popular so they developed a new game.

Personally I only purchased BG3, because I liked BG2, which was my entry. I have not played the first until 2017. In 2016 I learned what 1d6 stands for and in 2017 for the first time I noticed that THAC0 stands for To hit armor class 0. I still do not know what that means, though. Regardless I played through BG2 6 times or so (and many starts) and played BG1 twice. I do not care about the D&D ruleset, I never understood it, never wanted to, never was necessary.
I do not really care for the Forgotten Realms license, either, although a game that is called Deepwater, Neverwinter, Atkathla Sunrise, Real Ankheg Simulator or simply Minsc & Edwin, will immediately peak my interest.
I have Divinity Ego Draconis here, played it for two hours, thought it was okay, never touched it again or any of the other Divinity Games. Totally uninterested, although I acknowledge that they are good and have a wide audience.

So naturally with this we have a game where multiple crowds meet and none of them is instantly satisfied. I am unsatisfied, because it is not an actual BG3, just referencing space hamsters and the vague promise of Minsc is not enough. This might change. The story so far could also happen in any fantasy realm and the FR license is not needed.
If you liked the D&D in BG2 you are out of luck, too, because 5th edition is totally different from the D&D of 20 years ago apparently.
If you liked Divinity you will feel familiar, but with a lot of concessions to D&D.

Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
I'll write something longer on this at some point but I think it helps to separate the:

Social and exploring aspects of BG3
-- which feel like D&D and hint at BG2. (although like you I want more of BG2 feel -- which will only happen with a 6 person party and more banters outside of camp). Love the light, sneaking, exploring, environmental manipulation and so on.

Combat aspects
-- which feel like DOS2 with a D&D mod attached. Yes, 5th is a different system but all versions of D&D share the "how do I make it past the armor" aspect. In BG, NWN, ToEE, Solasta, Pathfinder etc you hit the unhittable by using a class based buff. Cast bless, true strike, get a +1 sword, make sure you are proficient in your weapon and suddenly you can hit.

Once they decided "it works . . .but it's no fun at all" they should have brought in a 5th edition fan to explain the system and how hit something instead of deciding to tweak the system.

And they could make missing more interesting with animations. A battle axe hitting armor but not penetrating, ducking, swords clashing, ducking under a slash. Sure "miss" is boring but jumping over the slash of the blade -- that would be great.

Joined: Oct 2020
R
addict
Offline
addict
R
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
I'll write something longer on this at some point but I think it helps to separate the:

Social and exploring aspects of BG3
-- which feel like D&D and hint at BG2. (although like you I want more of BG2 feel -- which will only happen with a 6 person party and more banters outside of camp). Love the light, sneaking, exploring, environmental manipulation and so on.

Combat aspects
-- which feel like DOS2 with a D&D mod attached. Yes, 5th is a different system but all versions of D&D share the "how do I make it past the armor" aspect. In BG, NWN, ToEE, Solasta, Pathfinder etc you hit the unhittable by using a class based buff. Cast bless, true strike, get a +1 sword, make sure you are proficient in your weapon and suddenly you can hit.

Once they decided "it works . . .but it's no fun at all" they should have brought in a 5th edition fan to explain the system and how hit something instead of deciding to tweak the system.

And they could make missing more interesting with animations. A battle axe hitting armor but not penetrating, ducking, swords clashing, ducking under a slash. Sure "miss" is boring but jumping over the slash of the blade -- that would be great.


I wouldn't say. You can do the best possible animations but in the end you will most likely end up flustration when you die because you can't hit the enemy for several rounds in a row.
The vast majority of people who will buy the game probably have only contact with D&D systems in previous games (or even not).
Even if you know the rules (more or less), the need to load due to bad rng can be annoying.
In RTwP games this is not a problem but it is a turn based game.
There is no DM in the game to help you with a bad RNG and AI will just kill you ruthlessly.
You can complain about the changes but it cannot be said that the reason for their introduction is unfounded.



Last edited by Rhobar121; 07/11/20 06:59 PM.
Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
I wouldn't say. You can do the best possible animations but in the end you will most likely end up flustration when you die because you can't hit the enemy for several rounds in a row.
The vast majority of people who will buy the game probably have only contact with D&D systems in previous games (or even not).
Even if you know the rules (more or less), the need to load due to bad rng can be annoying.
In RTwP games this is not a problem but it is a turn based game.
You can complain about the changes but it cannot be said that the reason for their introduction is unfounded.

But isn't this the reason for difficulty levels? If people get frustrated at missing a lot, then they could decrease a difficulty level (where, say, all monsters have -2 or -5 AC/Saves for easy or story difficulty, respectively). Isn't this option easier, and would have less cascading effects, than adding all these ways to get advantage and hit?

Larian has a reason for making all these changes, sure. But there are still good arguments that:
1.) their reasoning is wrong (who are they to assert that "missing isn't fun"?)
2.) their implementation is poor

Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
I find it interesting that the way Larian "solved" the "not fun" combat is by keeping the mechanics from dos 2


Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Oct 2020
R
addict
Offline
addict
R
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
I wouldn't say. You can do the best possible animations but in the end you will most likely end up flustration when you die because you can't hit the enemy for several rounds in a row.
The vast majority of people who will buy the game probably have only contact with D&D systems in previous games (or even not).
Even if you know the rules (more or less), the need to load due to bad rng can be annoying.
In RTwP games this is not a problem but it is a turn based game.
You can complain about the changes but it cannot be said that the reason for their introduction is unfounded.

But isn't this the reason for difficulty levels? If people get frustrated at missing a lot, then they could decrease a difficulty level (where, say, all monsters have -2 or -5 AC/Saves for easy or story difficulty, respectively). Isn't this option easier, and would have less cascading effects, than adding all these ways to get advantage and hit?

Larian has a reason for making all these changes, sure. But there are still good arguments that:
1.) their reasoning is wrong (who are they to assert that "missing isn't fun"?)
2.) their implementation is poor


You can argue whether the implementation is good or not.
However, considering how much experience they have in creating games, I would be inclined to assume that they know how to design games to make them enjoyable for players.
Otherwise, they would never get a license (Obsidian failed to get it).
Even Obsidian in PoE introduced a graze mechanic to minimize the number of misses.

In the spoiler I put a piece of an interview with Josh Sawyer from the time of PoE production.

Q: Wait...so neither the enemy nor your party members can ever miss? As in causing 0 damage/duration? Also what about critical misses?

Not currently, no. There is no special effect for a "critical miss".

Q: What made you decide that there shouldn't be a 0 damage miss. That is to say, what problem did you see with prior implementations of this that made you decide to try a new approach?

All-or-nothing results tend to produce large spikes in conflict resolution. On the extreme end, you have traditional AD&D spells like Disintegrate that either annihilate the target completely or... do nothing. More typically you have the standard to-hit roll that either results in normal damage or absolutely nothing. Because the gulf between success and failure results is so large, random chance has a very large impact how the conflict works out. This system normalizes the results. Our goal is to make your choice of tactic ultimately more important than the results of the die roll (though the die rolls still matter). If we're only implementing mechanics that are proven to be fun in RPGs, I'm not sure why we're talking about D&D's THAC0/BAB system. Players generally dislike the all-or-nothing results of those mechanics, which is why you saw a move away from it in 4E.

Q: Do you have any sort of source material on which you're basing this system? I'd assumed you're only implementing mechanics that have been proven to be fun in RPGs, ideally CRPGs.

As for source inspiration, 4E's dailies' miss results are a pretty good start. Also a lot of RTSs and MOBAs have moved to much more deterministic systems.

Q: That doesn't mean you should preclude 0 damage misses completely, especially in something as resource cheap as melee damage. Disintegrate was a resource heavy spell and I can understand that. Why not weigh your probability distributions and still have a 0 damage for those unable to pass a threshold like you are intending with lockpick and other events. Afterall, even a failed lockpick doesn't allow half of the party members through a locked door.

Locked doors are a traditionally problematic conflict resolution in games (as are most all-or-nothing checks) and, I think, highlight the problem rather than absolve it. My question is: how do "full" misses make gameplay better than mitigated results?

Q: It becomes a problem of victory through attrition. It can also limit the number of enemies attacking a party at one time. If you have 100 goblins and each always gets 1 point of damage even when they miss, that's a problem. Have you considered how this scales with lower-level and high-level party members? I can't simulate this, but does this adversely affect certain stages of the game more than others?

We're not planning on hundred enemy combats, but even at normal IE stages, I don't think it's a large problem. As for how it scales, we already know how standard THAC0/BAB scales (poorly), but it is one area we will continue to test.

Q: I'd wager that you're underestimating the fun of dodging and missing. It doesn't need to be as prominent as it was in Baldur's Gate-era missfests, but people like making characters that dodge all incoming damage. Also, the risk of doing no damage is fun.

I think you're overestimating the fun of dodging and missing. I don't think most players find it particularly enjoyable, and it's exacerbated/amplified in games like the new XCOM where players are constantly in stunned disbelief at the RNG.



Last edited by Rhobar121; 07/11/20 07:22 PM.
Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
It's a relevant example -- I actually think Sawyer's decision to incorporate 4th ed mechanics was part of the reason PoE failed. He was quick to embrace a system that most D&D fans rejected. PoE combat was tiresome and "never miss" aspect was a large part of that.

If I could have the PoE plot and visuals with ToEE combat that would be perfection itself. It's just sad that Troika never put any energy into story telling because their rule implementation was perfect.

Last edited by KillerRabbit; 07/11/20 07:30 PM.
Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
@Rhobar121

There is no reason to assume Larian knows how to design *all* games. They have had huge success with DOSI&II, designing a type of wacky, whimsical game that is nearly class-less and characters have multiple actions per turn.
This game here, BG3, is Larian's test to see if they can design a game that isn't DOS. Specifically, if they can design a game based on 5e.

Re: the interview you quoted
1.) grazing sounds more balanced than Larian's current implementation. So this is not a point in Larian's favor.
2.) again, opinions.
Originally Posted by Interview
Q: I'd wager that you're underestimating the fun of dodging and missing. It doesn't need to be as prominent as it was in Baldur's Gate-era missfests, but people like making characters that dodge all incoming damage. Also, the risk of doing no damage is fun.

I think you're overestimating the fun of dodging and missing. I don't think most players find it particularly enjoyable, and it's exacerbated/amplified in games like the new XCOM where players are constantly in stunned disbelief at the RNG.

The interviewer thinks Josh Sawyer is underestimating the fun of dodging an missing.
Josh explicitly "thinks most players don't find it particularly enjoyable"

Joined: Oct 2020
R
addict
Offline
addict
R
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
It's a relevant example -- I actually think Sawyer's decision to incorporate 4th ed mechanics was part of the reason PoE failed. He was quick to embrace a system that most D&D fans rejected. PoE combat was tiresome and "never miss" aspect was a large part of that.

If I could have the PoE plot and visuals with ToEE combat that would be perfection itself. It's just sad that Troika never put any energy into story telling because their rule implementation was perfect.


The first PoE sold better than the rest of the "classic" RTwP RPGs. The PoE2 fell because in the first one they tried too much to sell the game based on the sentiment from the IE era in first PoE.
And as it turned out, it was such a serious mistake that in PoE2 they modernized a large part of the project. They changed the system from "per rest" to "per fight" and practically removed the rest restriction.
Unfortunately, as it turned out, they did it too late and many players, disappointed with PoE, did not even buy PoE2 (which is definitely a better game).
As it turned out, relying on fans of old RPGs is not a very good idea if you want to use a fairly large budget.

Last edited by Rhobar121; 07/11/20 07:44 PM.
Page 53 of 61 1 2 51 52 53 54 55 60 61

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