Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 65 of 84 1 2 63 64 65 66 67 83 84
Joined: Oct 2020
H
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
H
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by ArvGuy
Originally Posted by Hachina
@Arvguy

Your point has already been debated a lot, but I'm gonna summarize my answers :

Baldurs gate 1&2 did it, so why would Baldur's gate 3 not be able to do it, twenty years later, with more money, more staff, and advanced technology?
I don't know if I really have "a point", aside from seeing some problems in a larger party size given where the game currently is. And while Larian certainly does have more staff and more money than the original BG team, that in itself is not an automatic fix to all problems.

Further, more advanced tech can be a double-edged sword. Advanced tech is pretty to look at but harder and more time consuming to create. NPCs used to just be a couple of voice lines, a couple of images, a creature file, and then text. Now they are fully textured, fully animated, fully voiced, and body and facial gestures has to match the dialogue too. An interaction between two NPCs requires multiple voice artists.

And the combat turn was rather abstracted in the Infinity Engine days. I am pretty sure they made it work by fixing certain actions to certain frames during the combat turn. Movement begins at frame x, attack 1 happens at frame y, spellcasting can start at frame z. A character that missed that deadline in the current turn would then wait until the next turn to perform that action. And movement was so much simpler, purely 2D, no disangage, no jump, no dash, no action surge, so AI pathfinding during combat was fine. Was there even attacks of opportunity in BG2?

Simplified combat turns allowed for everybody to execute their actions concurrently without everything becoming an imcomprehensible mess. This in turn made it feasible to many actors to be part of a combat without slowing everything to a crawl. The fine control over exactly what each character would do during a turn was lost, but that was acceptable back then. But would that sort of rules simplification still be acceptable now, though?


I agree with you that more tech = highter standard for graphism, but so far Larian has done the most beautiful computer C-RPG ever done, so I don't think graphism is a problem.
About animation, its mostly motion capture, so basically you hire some people to do the scene and you refine animation. Regarding voice and animation, doing a companion isn't more complicated than doing a random NPC, given absolutly ALL dialogue are scripted and have cinematic . Same for voice acting.

Combat was turn based as well in RTWp, basically it was ''fast turn'' system . I invite you to read this to see how Baldur's gate system worked https://baldursgate.fandom.com/wiki/Time_System . It was basically the same, except it felt more realistic, it was faster, and each fight didn't take 10 minutes to proceed, not to mention the infamous goblin fortress fight which take one hours and half to do and is way too long. Waiting six second for an enemy to decide what his move will be is too long in my opinion. But yeah basically RTWP is a turn based system, read my link and you'll see precisly how it was so well thought.

There was no attack of opportunity in BG2, not because of the technology but because it wasn't a rule in the second edition. Same for disengage. This could have been just as easily scripted, as its depend on the distance between two character. As a side note, I don't like attack of opportunity and I don't think they are an improvement over the second edition. Taste, you know.

No,the fine control over character wasn't lost in baldurs gate as you could pause time as many time as you wanted, to micromanage every single one of your party member. if anything, you had more control than in a turn based system. And the rules weren't simplified, they were adapted for video game medium (again, read link).




Originally Posted by Zefhyr
I love RtwP.

You see a mess where I see a fight.
You want to give order, you used the pause.
It was, in a way, more realistic and more intense.
And it never was less strategic, you just had to be careful and aware of your ennemies.

I play and appreciate both RtwP and Turn-based.
Turnbased is like chess, slow and all about the reflexion.

RtwP is more like an actual match, there is still reflexion but in a more epic way.

Actually, I love pathfinder which is RtwP. They put a turnbased mod cause they are nice and listening developers but I never used and will used it.


As the two of this systems are interesting, cause BG was RtwP cause it should have stayed RtwP. ^^

(And I think they choose RtwP cause it gave this realistic feeling, turned-base cant give you).

(And, by the way, when I played BG3 (months ago, I asked a refund since) I found the fights long, boring and not DAT strategic ^^" (though I liked DD 1 and 2))


PS: yeah there was attack of opportunity in BG, disengaging was risky ! ^^ (at least I believe from my memories... é.ê)

Pretty much this. +1

Last edited by Hachina; 02/08/21 04:56 PM.

If it's what it's takes to save the world, then the world doesn't deserves to be saved - Geralt
Joined: Aug 2021
A
member
Offline
member
A
Joined: Aug 2021
@Hachina

Your link to the time system in BG 1 and 2 is good, but it is a bit incomplete in the technical sense. For instance, how many attacks can a character have per round? The answer used to be five, if starting from the absolute beginning of a round. But if a few frames are wasted then the character won't be in time for the first attack and would not do their full round's worth of attacks until the following turn. How many off hand attacks? Only one, always. Use a +1 attack weapon off hand and you get another main hand attack.

Except BG2 did offer a way to break past this limit with Improved Haste and the Whirlwind HLAs. With those, you could have more than 5 APR, but only with those. Push to 5.5 APR normally and that's just wasted, but 3.5 APR + Imp Haste equals 6 attacks being executed. To my knowledge, it was done by letting the character perform two rounds at double speed during the normal round. And if you checked the log of a dual wielder during an Imp Haste round, you would find two off hand attacks. Just a funny little detail.

But the point is, I am almost certain that they fixed each combat round action to a particular frame during a round. The default was 30 frames per second, so they presumably divided the round into 180 frames and then fixed certain actions to certain frame numbers in order to get all the animation sprites to look sensible and end in time for the next round. I do not know this for a fact, of course, but I suspect it.

And this is what I mean with simplification and lack of fine control. There was very little in terms of controlling who went first or who went in what order or who took exactly what path in their movement. Combat was that lightning fast because each character's combat round was fairly simplified and all had their combat rounds at the exact same time. You either managed to be in range and time for your actions on that round or you did not and then you'd do it next round. You could pause the game, of course, but trying to maintain exact control over everything was like herding cats.

Now imagine 5E rules instead of 2E rules, meaning actions and bonus actions and free actions and reactions and turn order stuff and complex movement mechanics in the form of threat zones and disengagement and jumping distances and dashing and potion throwing and whatnot. Trying to handle that for six party members in real time (even with pause) while having to figure out what a throng of enemy critters are doing sounds like the kind of task that would make my hairline recede even further. I don't particularly like this added complexity, to be brutally honest, but it is part of 5E and I also don't think people would be happy if Larian just house ruled it away.

That being said, I absolutely agree with your criticism of how combat plays out in BG3 currently. Bigger fights are way too slow, too long, too drawn out, and enemies take way too long to get their backside going. There really needs to be some sort of fast forward until the next thing happens that actually affects a player-controlled character directly. I liked the combat of BG1 and 2 more than this. But that was 2E. I don't see how it could be done while preserving the flavour of 5E.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Fast Forward is an interesting idea. Skipping past things in combat the way we can skip past dialog or cut scenes might work, especially if its not a very engaging fight. Maybe it's not particularly 5e or D&D crpg, but I can imagine how it might work in a computer game. Like just roll for results, and it blows past all the opponents' stuff with some automated randomized result, and then shows the next up PC. It's similar to the randomizing elements that were involved in the "pause" + everything happening at once system from the old games. They just need a cleaner way to transition animations and to let the player know what has happened while they were fast forwarding hehe

I'm sure it would be more interesting with 6 PCs up than 4 though, at least for me, whatever scheme they end up adopting to make the combat play pace feel a bit faster.

Also, I really dislike how often the game uses AI "Allies" in the set piece combats. I feel like they are substituting all these NPC AI hangers-on to make the combats seem like they have a greater sense of scale, when I'd much rather it be more PCs in the party to balance off the hordes of opponents. Like especially the main EA battle, whether Gobbo or Grove, they both use a couple dozen rando NPC allies to balance for the number of enemies in the cascading combat arenas, whereas I'd prefer just having 6 PCs in the party who we could actually control.

Last edited by Black_Elk; 03/08/21 02:27 AM.
Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Yeah, I het the NPC thing, but it is early game for the most part. Rando NPCs are actually good for early game to help show players strats and to help them when they aren't familiar yet with the system.

This is actually one thing I think Larian was quite clever about. If you notice, later, you don't get rando NPCs helping at all. It is your party alone facing most of the encounters.

One thing I will say about 4 party members that I do agree with, though I am a fan of 6. If you start with 6, and need to add a few more NPCs for stort purposes, suddenly, you have a REALLY big party. If you add 2 NPCs like Halsin or Sazza or whoever, and you have 4, your party becomes 6. If you add 2 NPCs to a party of 6, now it's 8. 8 is a pretty large party.

That said, they could, at that point, say that your party is full. In order to travel with an NPC, you must dismiss a member or 2.

Joined: Oct 2020
H
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
H
Joined: Oct 2020
Hello,

First, thank you for reading the link, I appreciate that you took the time to read it before continuing the discussion smile !

The number of attack per turn depended on the character. For instance, lv 13 fighter had 2 Attack per round (APR). the speed factor of the weapon determine when the character gets to attack in his own round. For instance, a dagger was very fast and would attack at the start of the round, a greatsword was slow and would attack at the end of the character round.

If I'm not mistaken, you could actually get a double attack on dualwield. For instance, Drizz't could double hit you, and if you had a highlevel ranger with for instance Cromfaer and Celestial fury, sometime you would hit with one weapon and sometime with the other.

You could determine who got to attack first with positioning and micromanagement.

I'm not sure it behaved like you're saying tbh. I think character all had their own round timer, and as such , what you describe couldn't happen. I only have a reddit post to support this right now, might look for more later .
https://www.reddit.com/r/baldursgate/comments /l1mp4v/does_the_party_begin_and_end_rounds_simultaneously/ (link is a bit buggy, you can glue the two part together if you want to see the thread).

Basically everyone tell that character had their own timer, and you could start an action whenever you wanted in the game, you didn't have to wait 6 second.

in my opinion, its more like : A character start a round when you give him an order. You can interrupt the ''round'' to move or do actions that don't requires round. (for examples, you can stop spellcasting during a round to move, but you won't be able to initiate another spell right away, you'll have to wait a few sec).

you have a definite number of action each round like drinking potions, attacking. performing one put your action '' on cooldown'', but if you decide to start idle, you can start you next round whenever you want, you won't miss ''the first step'' of your next round.

But if the game was indeed working as you described, that would be an issue .




Actually, threat zone existed in BG2 . Archer got a defense and thacos malus when threatened by a closed fighter. Backstab depended already on positionning.

Disengage and jump are two mechanics that are the counterpart of attack of opportunities. You didn't need disengage and jump in BG2 because there was no attack of opportunities. Now that these are in the game, jump and disengage are vital because you can't play the game without it. As I said, I don't enjoy it, they tend to codify gameplay when it was more free before, in my opinion.

I'm totally for the addition of dashing and potion throwing, those are great potential addition to the game that can add a lot of RP.

Last edited by Hachina; 03/08/21 07:38 AM.

If it's what it's takes to save the world, then the world doesn't deserves to be saved - Geralt
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
+ More companions needed.
Not sure Larian will ever make other companions than their wierd and over complicated Origin characters (mercenaries >< companions)
Im sory, if you allready answered this in the past ... but i just must ask: Why? O_o
I mean, as long as we are able to create full party, another companion would be welcomed addition to be sure, but i would never call it "needed". O_o

Originally Posted by Maximuuus
+ Slower combats because of Larian's combat design philosophy (>< other 6 party based TB games).
As long as it means more time for me to actualy do something, instead just watching npcs doing their busines ... i would be fine with any prolonging. laugh


I liked original spellcasting system more ... frown

Anyway ... i cast Eldritch Blast!
Joined: Aug 2021
A
member
Offline
member
A
Joined: Aug 2021
@Hachina

This is shocking. I actually went back to test it out, just to be absolutely sure, and I am indeed completely wrong about the syncronicity of rounds. I must have gotten mud for brains at some point. Good grief.

But regarding the number of attacks per round, if you are dual wielding then you would get up to 4 main hand attack rolls and one off hand attack roll. Or 8 and 2, with Imp Haste / GWW. I distinctly recall having spent time on checking this out as meticulously as an impatient teenager checks anything out, way back in the day when damage optimization discussions were all the rage. You know, Chrommy off hand and FoA main versus Belm off, FoA main, and a strength girdle. Made a huge (as in, YUGE!!) difference how many hits one could get with each, back then. Yeah, I was one of those people, I'm afraid. smile

Anyway, back to topic. Baldur's Gate 2, with AoO, jump, dash, shove, verticality, and thrown stuff, all in real time, all refreshing every six seconds? It would be necessary to define some default attack options, though. Having to manually do all that cantrip casting every round would get tedious otherwise. But it might just be plausible. Completely nuts and chaotic, almost goes without saying, but probably more fun than the current state of affairs in BG3.

Last edited by ArvGuy; 03/08/21 12:58 PM.
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
+ More companions needed.
Not sure Larian will ever make other companions than their wierd and over complicated Origin characters (mercenaries >< companions)
Im sory, if you allready answered this in the past ... but i just must ask: Why? O_o
I mean, as long as we are able to create full party, another companion would be welcomed addition to be sure, but i would never call it "needed". O_o

Because the freedom you have to create your party depends the number of open slots AND the number of companions.

Here's something I wrote somewhere in this thread... The values are good.

"1 custom + 3 companions out of 10 possibilities => 120 combination
1 custom + 5 companions out of 10 possibilities => 252 combination"

Now this may be wrong because I don't remember the math but to give you an exemple : if the 10 possibilities become 9 possibilities, the 1+3 party may lead to more possibilities than the 1+5 (and if it's not 9, it may be 8 or 7).

Anyway both values are important and we just don't know how many companions are planned so it's hard to be accurate.

Of course this is pure math and doesn't care of companions alignement, companions that cannot be in the same team, companions that come in your party with their friend or husband (minsc and dynaheir, khalid and jaheira) and so on.

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
+ Slower combats because of Larian's combat design philosophy (>< other 6 party based TB games).
As long as it means more time for me to actualy do something, instead just watching npcs doing their busines ... i would be fine with any prolonging. laugh

This would definitely give us more things to do during combats. Playing more, watching less...

And there are other video games that have a party size of 6 and turn based combats that are definitely not slower and easier than BG3's combats.

Wasteland 2 is the best exemple I have in mind.

If you're interrested you should really try the mod that allow you to increase the party size. I had a playthrough with 5, another with 6 and plenty with 4.

6 break the fun, the game is not balanced at all for 6...but 5 is really really fun. Of course the game is a bit easier but what we have in this EA can be hard and is probably not the "hard" mode.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 03/08/21 01:20 PM.
Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by GM4Him
That said, they could, at that point, say that your party is full. In order to travel with an NPC, you must dismiss a member or 2.
Isn't this exactly how it is done in the original games?

Larian seems to be entrapped in the same mindset as some on this forum, which is that a game being made in 2021 must not have anything even remotely similar to what was done in 1999 because to do so goes against the spirit of a new and contemporary game. So every single thing in BG3 must be something "new." This is an asinine mentality. There are many things that were perfect in 1999 and still remain perfect in 2021, and the "new" alternative is actually a downgrade.

Joined: Oct 2020
H
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
H
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by ArvGuy
@Hachina

This is shocking. I actually went back to test it out, just to be absolutely sure, and I am indeed completely wrong about the syncronicity of rounds. I must have gotten mud for brains at some point. Good grief.

But regarding the number of attacks per round, if you are dual wielding then you would get up to 4 main hand attack rolls and one off hand attack roll. Or 8 and 2, with Imp Haste / GWW. I distinctly recall having spent time on checking this out as meticulously as an impatient teenager checks anything out, way back in the day when damage optimization discussions were all the rage. You know, Chrommy off hand and FoA main versus Belm off, FoA main, and a strength girdle. Made a huge (as in, YUGE!!) difference how many hits one could get with each, back then. Yeah, I was one of those people, I'm afraid. smile

Anyway, back to topic. Baldur's Gate 2, with AoO, jump, dash, shove, verticality, and thrown stuff, all in real time, all refreshing every six seconds? It would be necessary to define some default attack options, though. Having to manually do all that cantrip casting every round would get tedious otherwise. But it might just be plausible. Completely nuts and chaotic, almost goes without saying, but probably more fun than the current state of affairs in BG3.

Good thing if it made you come back to the old classic smile!

Okay, I didn't know that for off hand weapon, that good to know. Ahah yeah I'm familiar with that, glad to see another fellow adventurer optimizing build.

Yeah, that's a great idea , you would certainly need to do auto cantrip casting (as if attacking, the character would keep casting a pre-selected cantrip instead of a sword or bow attack), and maybe you could use gambit like in FFXII with ''mage use this cantrip, then this cantrip then this one'' on attacked enemy.


I really like shove and verticality, they are a great addition to the game. Would just like to balance it so they're less abusable by player. Didn't play since beta release but at that time hightground and shove were pretty strong.


If it's what it's takes to save the world, then the world doesn't deserves to be saved - Geralt
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Now this may be wrong because I don't remember the math but to give you an exemple : if the 10 possibilities become 9 possibilities, the 1+3 party may lead to more possibilities than the 1+5 (and if it's not 9, it may be 8 or 7).
Yes, i get this ... maybe i expresed myself poorly again ...
Let me ask a question ... in case that party size will be incerased and we didnt get any more companions, so our party will be stuck with either multiplayer-cheat for "more custom characters" ... or with simply everyone EA offers so far ...
On scale 1 to 10, when 1 is totally fine and 10 is totally awfull ... how much do you honestly believe it would ruin the experience?

I would gues 2, 3 top.

Originally Posted by Maximuuus
If you're interrested you should really try the mod that allow you to increase the party size. I had a playthrough with 5, another with 6 and plenty with 4.
I certainly am ...
But last time i tryed to install mod, i had to reinstal whole game -_- ...
So i would rather wait until someone come with easier way ... or, hopefully, until someone in Larian says something like: "What the hells ... they want it, lets give it to them" laugh I wonder wich will come first.


I liked original spellcasting system more ... frown

Anyway ... i cast Eldritch Blast!
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Here's another riff on it though, just to the question about 'what if they want temp NPC hangers-on for story purposes?' and doesn't going from 6 to 8 make the party then too unwieldy? My thought on this is that it really shouldn't, at least not if it was done well. What made Baldur's Gate unique and entertaining at the time, was really the god mode aspect of controlling multiple characters at once. Even in addition to the 6 standard PCs, you add on to that the idea of familiars or sidekicks, plus the various Koraxes and such, plus standard summons, and the game really needs to work with a party of at least a dozen, not just 6. ​I mean that's how it was in BG2.

In BG1 there was no limit to the amount of summons, other than the number of spells you had memorized, and how far you wanted to push your computer's ram lol. You could storm Nashkell with a couple dozen wolves and a gang of bears, if you wanted to, and your character had enough spellslots. That was wild, and a blast towards the endgame there. But the BG2 limit seemed pretty sensible. It still left room for plenty of companion characters to each have their own buddy minion. Or to fill out the extra slots with summons if you went with a smaller party. Even soloing still usually meant making use of summons, whether through spellslots or special items or consumables like scrolls and wands.

I just think they should aim higher. The kinks will be less pronounced I think if they go big with it, and the possible party combinations will be much greater (even if we only end up with a dozen possible companions to choose from) as mentioned earlier. So I just don't see how they can go wrong setting up support for 6 sooner rather than later. Gives us something fun to test, and would many happy, or at least it would make me happier lol

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
But BG2 also required you to kick out a party member to add in a required NPC. There's nothing wrong with that approach. It works just as well today as it did in 1999.

Joined: Aug 2021
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Aug 2021
Six People should be okay - although a "Maximum" that can "NORMALLY" not be overcome in terms of adding more Members.

I mean how powerful is a single Party going to become? A Party should stay a Party and "NOT" become a small Army.

Joined: Oct 2020
A
member
Offline
member
A
Joined: Oct 2020
I am good with a party of 5. The classical Fighter, Priest, Mage, Rogue plus a non typical class - bard, warlock, psionic, etc.

Joined: Mar 2013
A
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
A
Joined: Mar 2013
i really like a party of 6. i know larian wanted 4 because of making the game appeal to mass audience and for multiplayer. in pathfinder wrath of righteous, i played the game entirely on turn-based for few playthroughs. it wasn't slow but i do need to speed up the animation.

i like a party of 6 in bg3 but i think the biggest problem would be balance and the encounter design probably need to be revisited to add more enemies, fine-tune the HP and abilities, etc. here's hoping the mod community could make this happen.

i be really willing to donate to the modder too if they did that.

Joined: Dec 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by Archaven
i really like a party of 6. i know larian wanted 4 because of making the game appeal to mass audience and for multiplayer. in pathfinder wrath of righteous, i played the game entirely on turn-based for few playthroughs. it wasn't slow but i do need to speed up the animation.

i like a party of 6 in bg3 but i think the biggest problem would be balance and the encounter design probably need to be revisited to add more enemies, fine-tune the HP and abilities, etc. here's hoping the mod community could make this happen.

i be really willing to donate to the modder too if they did that.

They actually added this in Beta 3 for WotR.

[Linked Image from cdn.discordapp.com]

It goes up to x3 speed. I think going that high makes things TOO fast... (You can also press the enter button during movement or the enemy turn to make things go so fast that you might as well be skipping the entire animation, and you can also use it to skip cutscenes. The game never tells you this. At least for now.)

Last edited by Saito Hikari; 10/08/21 07:55 AM.
Joined: Mar 2013
A
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
A
Joined: Mar 2013
I'm not sure if they were already there before beta 3 for WotR. I been using the animation speed and it really works great. I only completed BG3 EA once (before druid announcement) but i already completed WotR beta twice and looking forward to the 3rd playthrough.

I think perhaps it's a trade off? Larian made those animations to be longer and make every actions to be more impactful? As such i think it will have more longer animations compared to a basic attack like WotR. I'm not sure how Larian can further reduce their animation time. But to add more party members, they have to perhaps solve the animation time IMO.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
If you mess around with the framerate and cap in the video options here, you can sometimes make the BG3 animations appear like a sped up Chaplin flick, or kinda slow mo depending on the numbers. It's kind of inconsistent though, like at first I thought maybe the option would make it appear more classic cinema, or maybe soap opera video or something if trying like 28 or 33 or just messing about at the low end. But it seemed to speed up more at the high end. I was fiddling around with it the other day and noticing different impressions of speed, but then I ended up just resetting defaults again after a while, cause it started to wonk out a bit lol

Last edited by Black_Elk; 12/08/21 01:34 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
T
addict
Offline
addict
T
Joined: Oct 2020
I am definitely in favor of 5-6 party members. At 5 you can get a balanced party via companions and then have a space extra for your character to be whatever you want to be without feeling too bad about doubling up because you like a particular companion but also want to be that class as well.

Page 65 of 84 1 2 63 64 65 66 67 83 84

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