Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by RumRunner151
Many people have asked for a difficulty setting. Some games have Difficulty: Easy/Normal/Hard

I would argue that if such a setting is added, it should be perhaps a set of defaults for a much more complex system. There are many binary opinions in these forums as to what the game should or shouldn't be. For each, there are opinions in favor and against. Why not take the most popular options and make them a toggle so each person can customize their game to what they believe is the correct way? The biggest problem is "balance". But I would argue that the devs only have to balance the game around what they decide are the "Normal" options as opposed to worrying about how each individual option affects balance.


I would like to see a game settings page that includes the following options as Enabled/Disabled:
1) Dialog Dice Rolls (skill checks).
2) Barrels of oil, fire wine, nautiloid tanks, etc.
3) Mobs can create ground/surface effects.
4) Party members can create ground/surface effects.
5) Mobs can have Advantage/Disadvantage Based on height.
6) Party members can have Advantage/Disadvantage Based on height.
7) Disengage, Jump, Hide, Throw, Shove are actions unless performed by a Rogue.
8) Backstab/Position gives no bonus.
9) Companion Romances.
10) Limit Long Rests.
11) Increase the number of short rests from 1 to 3.
12) Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters can learn spells.
13) Only Wizard spells can be learned.
14) Add Exhaustion.
15) Cantrips have no surface effects.
16) Mobs have correct stats, AC, and HP per DnD 5e.
17) Limit to maximum 1 spell + 1 cantrip per turn.
18) Interact with empty containers.
19) Allow a maximum of 1 offhand attack per round.
20) Pickpocketing has consequences.
21) All mobs will actively search for hidden characters.
22) Allow only potions to heal in combat.
23) Require food as a resource with hunger effects.
24) Mobs can use Magic Arrows.
25) Mobs can use potions and scrolls.
26) Mobs can use throwables (potions, vials, etc.)
27) Mobs cast sleep, hold person, and magic missile more.
28) Double the amount of leader/elite mobs in encounters.
29) Enemy archers and spell casters return to cover between attacks.

The next set IMO are not needed because the player can simply not use them even if available. Others have disagreed with my opinion so I present them as additional options here:
a) No food during battle
b) Only allow one swap of equipment per round
c) No throwing food/potions
d) No Dipping



Brilliant! =)

Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
Many people are tossing in +1's. I'd like to hop on-board, and toss in a -8,589,934,592.

This is a completely impractical idea. It only seems like a good idea to people who don't know anything at all about programming.

You have listed 33 options, each of which has two states, "on" or "off". That is 2 to the power of 33 combinations, or 8,589,934,592 possible combinations. Do you think that there somehow won't be glitches and bugs, locks and crashes with certain combinations of those 8.6 BILLION combinations? That's not likely. Diagnosing bugs created in a game with that system will be impossible. The QA department would quit en masse.

It would also be completely throwing balance out the window, because there will be certain combinations which are balance-breaking - for good and for bad. There would be no way for Larian to even decide what toggles are on and off, never mind for different difficulty levels. This would be giving up on the idea of balance completely and telling players "do whatever, change some toggles if you don't like it".

The fact is, no matter how many options get added, Larian is not going to be able to test the entire game with more than like, 10 combinations. They are going to need to make the default balance around specific settings anyway, and test to those. Which means when players play with different settings among the 8.6 BILLION than what Larian uses, they will inevitably hit some encounters which are too easy with those settings, or too hard with those settings, and then they'll complain about bad balance.

Too many cooks spoils the broth. Too many options breaks the game.

Last edited by Stabbey; 16/11/20 06:03 PM. Reason: too many combos to test anyway
Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Many people are tossing in +1's. I'd like to hop on-board, and toss in a -8,589,934,592.

This is a completely impractical idea. It only seems like a good idea to people who don't know anything at all about programming.

You have listed 33 options, each of which has two states, "on" or "off". That is 2 to the power of 33 combinations, or 8,589,934,592 possible combinations. [...]

The solution is to balance the game for a standard set of these options (maybe 2-4 permutations), but then allow players to freely adjust these toggles with a warning that "Doing so is not recommended if you want a balanced game." This addresses your balance argument.

As to bugs, you don't actually have to consider each permutation.
E.g. dipping: The toggle option just removes the "dip" button from your actionbar. No need to consider how the "lack of a dip button" will introduce bugs/glitches/etc. (At least I would hope so)
This won't reduce the number of combinations to 33 (the # of toggles), but it will probably be much much much closer to 33 than 8,589,934,592

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
I'm hoping there will be an "iron-Man" mode that combines more "realistic" stuff too, like limited overnight camping in dungeons where you need to set a guard and carry food/wood/tinderboxes and blankets around.

These are the sorts of things, along with some more difficult aspects like mobs using everything players do, and the fixing of some broken spell/class things that seem like they are currently just unfinished bits that will eventually come about, that I'd very much enjoy seeing implemented into the game.

Joined: Oct 2020
O
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
O
Joined: Oct 2020
I have been advocating this approach for the last 3 weeks, its defiantly the way to go, if Larian won't include an options page to customise the game im pretty sure some modders could do it.
Its basicly giving the player the option of a GM thats more suited for his/her playstyle.

also would like to see the following options.

Fast travel ONLY from portal to portal.
Only long rest (Main camp) acess from a portal or town
Only short rest from a safe area
Short rest has the chance to get interrupted.
Push distance is STR based as pr 5E ruleset
Jump distance is STR based as pr 5E ruleset
Sneaking characters can be detected by noice (not really viable to sneak in full plate mail)

Joined: Oct 2020
O
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
O
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Many people are tossing in +1's. I'd like to hop on-board, and toss in a -8,589,934,592.

This is a completely impractical idea. It only seems like a good idea to people who don't know anything at all about programming.

You have listed 33 options, each of which has two states, "on" or "off". That is 2 to the power of 33 combinations, or 8,589,934,592 possible combinations. Do you think that there somehow won't be glitches and bugs, locks and crashes with certain combinations of those 8.6 BILLION combinations? That's not likely. Diagnosing bugs created in a game with that system will be impossible. The QA department would quit en masse.

It would also be completely throwing balance out the window, because there will be certain combinations which are balance-breaking - for good and for bad. There would be no way for Larian to even decide what toggles are on and off, never mind for different difficulty levels. This would be giving up on the idea of balance completely and telling players "do whatever, change some toggles if you don't like it".

The fact is, no matter how many options get added, Larian is not going to be able to test the entire game with more than like, 10 combinations. They are going to need to make the default balance around specific settings anyway, and test to those. Which means when players play with different settings among the 8.6 BILLION than what Larian uses, they will inevitably hit some encounters which are too easy with those settings, or too hard with those settings, and then they'll complain about bad balance.

Too many cooks spoils the broth. Too many options breaks the game.



100% WRONG
Obviously you don't have have a clue about programming.
The game as is is totally unbalanced and simply broken in a lot of ways right now, putting in more options for customising your game is only a positive and won't take anything away from anyone.
Look at the Long war mod for X-com that was made by modders and it singlehandeldly made the game many times better. if Larian can't handle to put in a single switch for different options they shouldn't be making videogames.
If by your flawed logic turning stuff on/off will spin out of contol like you suggest, why do we then have options for putting all the different items we pick up on the hotbar or not? , theres 29 options turn turn things on/off allready in the gameplay options menu, by your logic that is an impossible task.

Last edited by Ormgaard; 16/11/20 08:22 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
E
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
E
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Ormgaard


also would like to see the following options.

Fast travel ONLY from portal to portal.
Only long rest (Main camp) acess from a portal or town
Only short rest from a safe area
Short rest has the chance to get interrupted.
Push distance is STR based as pr 5E ruleset
Jump distance is STR based as pr 5E ruleset
Sneaking characters can be detected by noice (not really viable to sneak in full plate mail)


I agree with some of your suggestions, but it's worth noting that shove distance isn't based on STR, only the chance of a successful shove is. Shove distance per 5e is either 5 ft or 0 if you choose to knock them prone instead.

For sneaking, I'd really like to a ring that circles a creature to represent sound, along with the vision cone. Maybe with tiers to the circle using different colors, where the enemy had disadvantage to perception checks a certain distance not in their LOS.

Joined: Oct 2020
O
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
O
Joined: Oct 2020
Ahh yes sorry, i remeberred wrong about the shove distance smile your right it's only for sucess rate smile

Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
Originally Posted by Ormgaard

100% WRONG
Obviously you don't have have a clue about programming.
The game as is is totally unbalanced and simply broken in a lot of ways right now, putting in more options for customising your game is only a positive and won't take anything away from anyone.
Look at the Long war mod for X-com that was made by modders and it singlehandeldly made the game many times better. if Larian can't handle to put in a single switch for different options they shouldn't be making videogames.
If by your flawed logic turning stuff on/off will spin out of contol like you suggest, why do we then have options for putting all the different items we pick up on the hotbar or not? , theres 29 options turn turn things on/off allready in the gameplay options menu, by your logic that is an impossible task.



There's a difference between gameplay and UI. 20-30 different settings for gameplay and balance which change different things and can interact in intertwining ways is different and more complex than an "add to hotbar" flag. It is not "a simple switch"; anyone who ACTUALLY programs should be able to understand the difference.

Larian has to make their balance based around a certain set of gameplay features. They cannot test that many combinations of gameplay-affecting options. So yes, asking that they spend their time and resources trying to manage eight billion different combinations instead of finding a solid base balance does take away from other people.

Last edited by Stabbey; 16/11/20 09:37 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
O
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
O
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by Ormgaard

100% WRONG
Obviously you don't have have a clue about programming.
The game as is is totally unbalanced and simply broken in a lot of ways right now, putting in more options for customising your game is only a positive and won't take anything away from anyone.
Look at the Long war mod for X-com that was made by modders and it singlehandeldly made the game many times better. if Larian can't handle to put in a single switch for different options they shouldn't be making videogames.
If by your flawed logic turning stuff on/off will spin out of contol like you suggest, why do we then have options for putting all the different items we pick up on the hotbar or not? , theres 29 options turn turn things on/off allready in the gameplay options menu, by your logic that is an impossible task.



There's a difference between gameplay and UI. 20-30 different settings for gameplay and balance which change different things and can interact in intertwining ways is different and more complex than an "add to hotbar" flag. It is not "a simple switch"; anyone who ACTUALLY programs should be able to understand the difference.

Larian has to make their balance based around a certain set of gameplay features. They cannot test that many combinations of gameplay-affecting options. So yes, asking that they spend their time and resources trying to manage eight billion different combinations instead of finding a solid base balance does take away from other people.


Your'e wrong here.
theres no balancing testing involved in turning off exploding barrels
Thres no balancing needed for turning off groundeffects for cantrips
There is no balancing needed for tuning off fast travel
Theres no balancing needed for runing off romance options
theres no balancing needed for tuning off high ground giving advantage.
this goes for most of the options,
its about ME wanting the OPTION to turn somthing off that makes the game a trivial mess and its NOT hard to include at all.

Last edited by Ormgaard; 16/11/20 11:10 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Many people are tossing in +1's. I'd like to hop on-board, and toss in a -8,589,934,592.

This is a completely impractical idea. It only seems like a good idea to people who don't know anything at all about programming.

You have listed 33 options, each of which has two states, "on" or "off". That is 2 to the power of 33 combinations, or 8,589,934,592 possible combinations. Do you think that there somehow won't be glitches and bugs, locks and crashes with certain combinations of those 8.6 BILLION combinations? That's not likely. Diagnosing bugs created in a game with that system will be impossible. The QA department would quit en masse.

It would also be completely throwing balance out the window, because there will be certain combinations which are balance-breaking - for good and for bad. There would be no way for Larian to even decide what toggles are on and off, never mind for different difficulty levels. This would be giving up on the idea of balance completely and telling players "do whatever, change some toggles if you don't like it".

The fact is, no matter how many options get added, Larian is not going to be able to test the entire game with more than like, 10 combinations. They are going to need to make the default balance around specific settings anyway, and test to those. Which means when players play with different settings among the 8.6 BILLION than what Larian uses, they will inevitably hit some encounters which are too easy with those settings, or too hard with those settings, and then they'll complain about bad balance.

Too many cooks spoils the broth. Too many options breaks the game.


I tend to agree, with 2^33 potential mechanic variations the number of possible conflicts even at 0.001% is 86k. Normally options like this are cosmetic/graphical and difficulty generally comes in a generic hp/damage blanket multiplier which is easy to implement.

I agree with OP that a number of tastes need to be catered to so grouping said options into 4-5 difficulty modes would only require that many test scenarios. Even that is alot of game to test that many mechanical changes. Personally would just prefer a core D&D mode, DOS2 mode and ironman.

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by mrfuji3

The solution is to balance the game for a standard set of these options (maybe 2-4 permutations), but then allow players to freely adjust these toggles with a warning that "Doing so is not recommended if you want a balanced game." This addresses your balance argument.

As to bugs, you don't actually have to consider each permutation.
E.g. dipping: The toggle option just removes the "dip" button from your actionbar. No need to consider how the "lack of a dip button" will introduce bugs/glitches/etc. (At least I would hope so)
This won't reduce the number of combinations to 33 (the # of toggles), but it will probably be much much much closer to 33 than 8,589,934,592


This

Joined: Oct 2020
O
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
O
Joined: Oct 2020
Three is no options that breaks the game , you can just leave them alone if you like how the standard settings is, what breaks the balance or dosent is up to the individual player.
I have been involved in gamed evelopment for many many years now and the way your looking at the numbers is just plain wrong, most of theese options is not about adding stuff, its simply about turning stuff off.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Ormgaard

its about ME

yeah, we know

Joined: Oct 2020
O
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
O
Joined: Oct 2020
what is that supposed to mean? just cant come up with any argument so you have to troll? grow up kiddo.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Many people are tossing in +1's. I'd like to hop on-board, and toss in a -8,589,934,592.

This is a completely impractical idea. It only seems like a good idea to people who don't know anything at all about programming.

You have listed 33 options, each of which has two states, "on" or "off". That is 2 to the power of 33 combinations, or 8,589,934,592 possible combinations. Do you think that there somehow won't be glitches and bugs, locks and crashes with certain combinations of those 8.6 BILLION combinations? That's not likely. Diagnosing bugs created in a game with that system will be impossible. The QA department would quit en masse.

It would also be completely throwing balance out the window, because there will be certain combinations which are balance-breaking - for good and for bad. There would be no way for Larian to even decide what toggles are on and off, never mind for different difficulty levels. This would be giving up on the idea of balance completely and telling players "do whatever, change some toggles if you don't like it".

The fact is, no matter how many options get added, Larian is not going to be able to test the entire game with more than like, 10 combinations. They are going to need to make the default balance around specific settings anyway, and test to those. Which means when players play with different settings among the 8.6 BILLION than what Larian uses, they will inevitably hit some encounters which are too easy with those settings, or too hard with those settings, and then they'll complain about bad balance.

Too many cooks spoils the broth. Too many options breaks the game.



This is a good post, and makes a lot of sense. I especially like that your minus number in the first paragraph was the actual number of combinations and not just some random numbers strung together.

I'd like more options than merely Easy/Normal/Hard, but not nearly as many as in the original post. Kingmaker did it pretty well, from what I remember.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Many people are tossing in +1's. I'd like to hop on-board, and toss in a -8,589,934,592.

This is a completely impractical idea. It only seems like a good idea to people who don't know anything at all about programming.


As the OP and someone who has made a lot of money programming in over a dozen languages over the last 25 years, I think I actually know quite a bit about programming. I think you have done a great job of making a dismissive argument. If I was arguing that the game should be balanced around all the possible permutations, I would agree with you. But I am not, so I don't.

For the record, I have very little faith that my suggestion would be implemented even in part. And if it was, it surely would not be in its entirety. But it's our job to ask for the stars and Larian's to have us accept the moon.

Joined: Oct 2020
Tuv Offline
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
I hope there will also be a "different and more enemies" to mix up encounters. Regular gnolls for normal and heavily armored with magical backup on the very hardest.
Otherwise, since mostly everything is tied to rolling, having a +4 +2 +0 -2 -4 to rolls for 5 difficulties would already be neat

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Quebec
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Quebec
Originally Posted by Ormgaard
I have been advocating this approach for the last 3 weeks, its defiantly the way to go, if Larian won't include an options page to customise the game im pretty sure some modders could do it.
Its basicly giving the player the option of a GM thats more suited for his/her playstyle.

also would like to see the following options.


Only short rest from a safe area
Short rest has the chance to get interrupted.
Push distance is STR based as pr 5E ruleset
Jump distance is STR based as pr 5E ruleset
Sneaking characters can be detected by noice (not really viable to sneak in full plate mail)

I agree with the following :
* Fast travel ONLY from portal to portal.
* Only long rest (Main camp) acess from a portal or town [along other Long Rest limitations]
* Stealth checks should be rolled by SOUND when not in vision cone and, in 5e tabletop, DMs rarely encourage hiding in plain sight. For example, Wood Elves have a special perk to hide in bad climate and tall grass, because others CANNOT.

BUT note that clunky armors already give Disadvantage on Stealth, but currently only in the vision cone.

Last edited by Baraz; 18/11/20 04:01 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Australia
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Australia
Originally Posted by Tuv
I hope there will also be a "different and more enemies" to mix up encounters. Regular gnolls for normal and heavily armored with magical backup on the very hardest.
Otherwise, since mostly everything is tied to rolling, having a +4 +2 +0 -2 -4 to rolls for 5 difficulties would already be neat

I hope the enemies have their monster manual stats and not random Larion stats...

Page 3 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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