Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#732065 10/11/20 11:07 PM
Joined: Nov 2020
R
ROG Offline OP
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
R
Joined: Nov 2020
Hi all , usually i never post on game forums but the quote below seems to show an astonishing level of disconnection from all forums discussing the proposed game - although maybe Larian has other sources available to them.

'There’s Larian’s long-term fans, who are crying out for there to be more ‘surfaces’ in the game (a mechanic used in the Original Sin games to create dynamic fire, poison clouds, oil slicks, and more)'

Being an interested fan of both Larian games and DnD games for quite some time i was hoping i could get some feedback regarding the above quote - is there actually a large group of people wanting an increase in surfaces ?
Full disclosure - i would prefer less surfaces and a bit closer adaption regarding DnD rules in general but overall i quite like the game so far.

Happy Gaming All

Joined: Sep 2015
N
old hand
Offline
old hand
N
Joined: Sep 2015
I think so far the consensus is rather having less surfaces for lower level spells because it makes them being too powerful. And as well, for oil barrels for example, having them accessible in places it makes sense rather than everywhere in some areas just for the fun of it.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Hello, welcome and I'll tell you that while we here rarely agree on anything, you'll scarcely see anyone asking for more surfaces. The consensus (if you can call it that) is more or less "please no surfaces/nerf surfaces hard". The game being more in-line with 5e is also a common point of discussion, though one that you can clearly see two sides debating on. (I'd say there's probably more people here wanting BG3 to be closer to 5e RAW, myself included.)

Joined: Dec 2016
Location: Denmark
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2016
Location: Denmark
I, too, have no idea where Swen Vincke got that idea from.
The game's had a fair amount of controversial topics that have caused a lot of discussion back and forth (rtwp vs turn based to name one) yet no matter where I've looked I have seen people unanimously agree that the current surface effects are completely out of hand.

Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Online Content
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020

Joined: Nov 2020
R
ROG Offline OP
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
R
Joined: Nov 2020
Thanks for the replies , I am just a bit confused though that an IGN article seems to quote one of the game developers as stating that an increase in surfaces is wanted by many - my main problem with this is that it would have large repercussions on all aspects of combat mechanics and would be difficult to alter using a player mod.

Actual combat mechanics ie disengage/shove etc can be altered by mods to suit an individuals tastes but surface interactions as standard throughout the game would need to be handled carefully so that they can be an option certainly but not the only option or always the best option - a little goes a long way in my opinion and would help to keep the encounter design varied and preventing the game from becoming a one trick pony where an exploding barrel etc is always the easiest/best solution.

I like the added interaction with the environment but would prefer a more balanced approach.

Last edited by ROG; 10/11/20 11:34 PM.
Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Agreed. It's a classic use of an illusionary pole of continuum designed to make the middle point seem reasonable and to make on pole seem more extreme than it really is.

It's also my bugbear -- it's the rhetorical technique that annoys me more than any other. "On one side you have people who believe health care is a human right" "on the other side you have people who believe health care should only be given to people named 'sam' , clearly, the answer must be in the middle" Of course "team Sam" either doesn't exist or exists but consists of three people or less.

Joined: Nov 2020
R
ROG Offline OP
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
R
Joined: Nov 2020
Thanks for the articles , missed a few of them , always interesting in reading other peoples perspectives.

Joined: Jul 2014
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2014
I, personally, think surfaces as they are now are absolutely fine. It remains to be seen how it scales once casters will start getting AoE heavy hitters like Fireball that are sure to spawn big surfaces, but it does add an interesting tactical touch to otherwise barebones combat.

As a whole - I'm totally for more options available for players to approach the encounters because it simply is more fun, than just going dry by the book. I'm also super hyped about couple latest interviews hinting about additions to blander classes like Fighters in form of some sort of additional ability.


I do think, however, that they need to make barrels a tad more prohibitive, like make them weight 100kg+ so only strongest team members can pack maybe one of those just in case. But other than that - if even after that change there would be people trying to do this nuclear explosion setup or some such - more power to them, at this point silly fun and laughs > being a total tightass, IMO.

Things like thunderwaving a bunch of weapons and trash into dragon also should remain a thing, except for this silly gold blast thing, where you can drop a bunch of coins and oneshot a dragon with those.

Last edited by Gaidax; 10/11/20 11:35 PM.
Joined: Nov 2020
R
ROG Offline OP
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
R
Joined: Nov 2020
Fireballs setting things on fire i have no real problems with - though a saving throw from burning or an optional bonus action to put out the burning person would be nice.

Undecided about additions to fighters since my knowledge of DnD is from 2nd and 3rd edition mostly - weapons already give an additional effect ( a house rule i presume ) too much change risks unbalancing the class from its party role - although i can see the appeal from a multiplayer point of view i suppose - grappling would have been interesting though difficult to implement graphically for all encounters.

My main concern is if combat encounters become designed with surfaces as part of the main balance this would have a knock on effect of reducing all other options as viable alternatives available to the player,

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
I generally like the interactive barrels, crates and other things in the game. I could see making barrels heavier, and also would like more use of the stuff by monsters and enemies. Maybe damage could be lessened a tad, but, I think these additional interactive elements add choices, fun and a whole lot of tactical planning to any battle.

Larian's approach is a lot different than most other games I've played- but to me anyways, it's in a good way, not bad. They force the player to do a lot more thinking before charging in, and a lot more paying attention to one's surroundings and possible resulting situations.

It's a breath of fresh air in a gaming world where you mostly follow the cheese hanging on the end of a stick through a one way maze where clicking on stuff with your sword results in success.

Not here.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
I'll let you know a person that wants more surfaces. Swen! and his voice trumps all of the other voices. He making the game he wants and if we are not happy, well, the modders will fix it.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
I want to note that the part of that article that says that people are "crying out for more surfaces" is NOT a quote from Swen. It's just the article-writer saying that.

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by Balls
I generally like the interactive barrels, crates and other things in the game. I could see making barrels heavier, and also would like more use of the stuff by monsters and enemies. Maybe damage could be lessened a tad, but, I think these additional interactive elements add choices, fun and a whole lot of tactical planning to any battle.

Larian's approach is a lot different than most other games I've played- but to me anyways, it's in a good way, not bad. They force the player to do a lot more thinking before charging in, and a lot more paying attention to one's surroundings and possible resulting situations.

It's a breath of fresh air in a gaming world where you mostly follow the cheese hanging on the end of a stick through a one way maze where clicking on stuff with your sword results in success.

Not here.




Ok so OP surfaces and elemental effects/damage and/or feature that become automatic because there are OP increase the "tactical" value of the game... Why not smile

Don't get me wrong I like surfaces but actually it's not implemented like a tactical mechanic at all... It's implemented to be "see me ? look at us ! play with us !"

Last edited by Maximuuus; 11/11/20 09:00 AM.
Joined: Jul 2014
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
I want to note that the part of that article that says that people are "crying out for more surfaces" is NOT a quote from Swen. It's just the article-writer saying that.

Still delusional.


Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. You too can join the good fight HERE
Joined: Sep 2015
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2015
I join the club of people who want to stay closer to the DnD 5E rules and who want to have less D:OS2 mechanics.
I think the DnD rules are fine as they are, no need to add tons of special effects or change how spells and abilities work.


groovy Prof. Dr. Dr. Mad S. Tist groovy

World leading expert of artificial stupidity.
Because there are too many people who work on artificial intelligence already :hihi:
Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Definitely dont want more, but i wouldn't want them removed, they are a unique thing only in Larian games and they are fun just needs to be toned down.
less magical fire arrows, less oil Barrels in enemy camps (but maybe more in out of the way locations so a player can choose to use them by leading the enemy to them, adding weight to barrels to you cant carry more than 1 at a time)

Can anyone here say that when playing DOS for the first time, freezing water/blood or electrifying a puddle and hitting multiple enemies wasn't extremely cool?

Joined: Mar 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2020
Definitely a NO to more, and a subdued yes to less.
Wouldn't want them gone either, just not quite so prelevant as currently.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
There is enough explodey things before you get off the mindflayer ship to cheese the golbin camp at level 1. There is enough barrels in the goblin camp to kill everything there twice over. You can kill all 3 bosses and the gith patrol with 6 powder barrels and a candle. Unsure how "more surfaces" could be added when you can already bypass EA without using a weapon?

Joined: Oct 2020
G
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
G
Joined: Oct 2020
I have not really felt like there are surfaces everywhere in the current version of the game, especially if you do not use the barrels yourself, which I have not really done.

But yeah I am all for toning them down but not removing them, I also think cantrips should only create a surface if directly aimed at the ground. That way they could pretty much work as stated in raw rules while also have a new use to them that is just a fun addition to the game.

They really need to balance ice surface before enemies have access to them that is for sure, those things are broken.

Page 1 of 2 1 2

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