Larian Studios Forums Divine Divinity (English) Suggestions Combat systems

Since Marian said in the Interview he liked that "you can play the DeathKnight", I guess it will be so that you can "use" the human (when you play the DeathKnight) or the DeathKnight (when you play the human being) as a fighting comrade. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

How about a variable speed RTS, with penalties for slowing down below normal speed? Penalties could be lower scores or prohibitions on using some of the special abilities at slower speeds. This give players the option to exercise caution and discretion, or attempt to act more deliberately, when they feel that the normal game speed is too overwhelming.

When a player changes game speed, an autosave could be forced, permitting them to recover to that checkpoint to play the scenario over again. In other words, permitting variable game speed shifts the player's focus from tactics to strategy, from adrenal to analytical.

Wouldn't this be a good mixture of playing options? And, there's no change to the engine formulae or database statistics. Just add a few score-penalty switches, a "zoom" function on the game clock, and one more control to the UI. Voila!

Interesting idea. I think if it were implimented, it would bring up a warning saying you will not score or progress to the next mission if you go ahead with the speed change.

But war games are meant to be strategic and well thought out. Because of the limited control system, you can't hand out orders fast enough, even if you can work them out on the fly.

Perhaps let them slow down the game with no penalty, except in hard mode where it's completely disabled? The game should be accessable by a wide audience, not just experieced gamers.

also twitchy gamers. i'm an experienced gamer but it doesn't mean i'm twitchy as well. so who's to say experienced gamers don't play it slow? unless of course if the game's about racing. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" />

There's several ways... to make an RPG's fighting - or action oriented aspect's fun. I truly don't think any of them are inherently better. Mostly, and truly - it will come down to personal opinion. So I will list several - i've seen, or had hands on experience with (I'll "try" to keep them recent, as i'm not sure, older games will be familiar...).

1. First Person RPG: ([color:"red"]Morrowind[/b][/color], [b][color:"red"]Vampire: the Masquerade - Bloodlines[/b][/color], [b][color:"red"]Arx Fatalis[/color][/b], Daggerfall, ect...)
[b]2. Tactical RPG: (Final Fantasy: Tactics (not Advanced), Shining Force, Ogre Battle)
3. 3rd Person RPG: (Never Winter Nights, Temple of Elemental Evil, Baldur's Gate *series*)
4. Hack&Slash RPG: (Diablo, Darkstone, Diablo 2, ect...)
5. Turn Based RPG: (Fallout, Fallout 2, Final Fantasy *most of the series was turned based I believe*)
6. Hybrid RPG: (Vagrant Story, Legend/Secret of Mana (SD) *series*, Kingdon Hearts)


Many of these have RPG slapped on them... but how many of them are? RPG, seems to not have the same meaning - from game to game. With diablo, your hand is held through the story - no ROLE is played. Your character has a fixed fate. Games like this, get labeled as RPGs all the time - but shouldn't. Divine Divinity is easily mistaken for such a game - but there's a true difference, options, decisions, actions - they have an effect on the character and the world around you. Truly a mistake to assume - simply due to a combat system - that it's "one thing" ... for truly a combat system, does not make a game - just like graphics don't make a game. Divine Divinity is a true example of this.

-

There's other such msitakes - but I believe - any combat system - in a game - can be used - and not have an impact on the actual "roleplaying" aspect of the game.

-

Personally i'm a fan of First person RPGs, like Vampire: the Masquerade - Bloodlines is going to be. But that's a personal thing. It's just as easy to mistake a first person RPG, for a First Person Shooter - when in fact the roleplaying aspects make it something compeltely different. And indeed a game can be in the first person - without having anything to do with "shooting things".

Behind that, I find Final Fantasy: Tactics (and other of that ilk) - to be a favorite, not only for its story (though not so much roleplaying) and combat system. A very interesting system.

-

Then there are things that are jsut... wierd - Vagrant Story, is a perfect example of this - but it's a wonderful game to play through - story wise... but more suttly cobmat wise. So many peopel get frustrated with it - unable to see how it's complexities make it so much more enthralling than your common combat system.

-

But then... that may all just be me.

Actually, I think the proper term for these games is isometric. 3rd person would be like Gothic or Gothic 2. But, as always, I could be wrong <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

Either or. Isometric is a style of graphical presentation, and third person simply means from an outsider's perspective. So it's both! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I dont know if this has been said but i definetly think you should be able to hold two weapons at a time. But i also think that you shouldnt be able to use a weapon until you have level one in the skill so if you decide to use a dual weapon thing then there also needs to be a skill for it. Also i think youshould be able to choose your starting skills (how ever many there is) at the begging. another suggestion is to be able to adjust the characters appearance more, i.e. more different faces, height alterations, weight, and hair etc. This will give the game a more personal feel. Also (again dont know if this has been said) but a networked cooprative mode where one person is the deathknight and the other is the 'hero'. also i would like to see a far greater number of armour types and looks aswell as new weapon types and other attacking items like knukle dusters for unarmed combat. Also (i cant remeber if this is in divinity or not) an unarmed skill like sword and axe skill. Also on the topic of character creation a choice of your characters voice would be nice.

I hope you take these suggestions into consideration as it will vastly increase the lifespan and gameplay of Beyond Divinity.

Well, IMO - it is more realist that you can not handle two weapons at once...
I own a sword, and - lord is it heavy. It is a two handed, and i can barely lift it with one...so just the balance of a sword i think it too much to have one on each arm.
Though i suppose you could have throwing knifes or whatever...but do you have time to pull them out?

Just a thought...

Theire are certain weapons that have 2 part one in each hand. I remember a fighting technique with 2 swords one long sword and one thats more dagger like.

As for combat system turnbased wouldn't be bad. When I look at the combat in <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beyond.gif" alt="" /> and all it's complex tactics you just have to press pause key. So why don't you make it mandatory then in <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/div.gif" alt="" />² .

it's kinda movie/anime style to go swinging around with 2 swords....it looks heroic...and i have 2 swords too..(real life)...it's very much doable too be swinging them both around at the same time....next time i'm gonna buy...a 2 handed sword if i can find one......

well obviously you not gonna be able to handle a two handed sword in one hand are ya, hence 2 HANDED. and you should really research stuff into the suggestion you wish to reply to before you reply as you can eisily hold two weapons, one in each hand, like an axe and a short sword or two swords or what morbo suggested about the medival technique where they use a sword (which actually is quite long and heavy) as well a dagger, so put some more thought into it first yeah?

What she means is that she can barely carry the sword with one hand, which isn't an impossible feat. She certainly can't use it with one hand.

It is just an OPINION - and i have every right to voice it here.
So...unless you have something NICE to say - don't say anything.

I was not putting down anyone in this forum with my thought.

maybe, the kotor's combat system, with his action queued system ? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

for games likes Diablo, diablo 2, BG, DD or other CRPG, the best way to progress is fighting monster <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/sad.gif" alt="" />
there is many way to solve quest but only one to defeat an enemy, kill him
I think the sneak could be another way but sneaking give you 0 XP, it is not valuate
the Lionheart system try to value the sneak skill but killing monster is much easier and more profitable than sneaking them
In lionheart, sneaking gives you XP and killing a monster too, and killing a monster gives you access to his inventory so, kill is more profitable

an example :
you meet a monster, the monster can gives you 100 XP by killing him, in the lionheart system, you could have up to 125 XP for that monster if you sneak
the XP for sneaking down the XP for killing so, you can won 124 Xp for sneaking and 1 and inventory for killing him, it's not balanced
in fact, you have killing him, you could win only 100 XP

maybe negative XP is the way, but there is a level up problem
or a fixed XP for each stage? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/sad.gif" alt="" />

I think I am confused in my explanation, and this foreign language don't help me <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/sad.gif" alt="" />
I think I am confused in my native language too <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" />

I'm more or less against monsters serving merely as source for experience points. Personally, I'd like more experience points given for solving quests (if possible without fighting at all) instead for killing monsters.

Alrik.

that was another thread right??..

what would be funny....is to have a weapon like Cloud had (FF7) That sword was huge....

being able to handle two weapons isnt an opinion its a fact that you can. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" />

Hmmm, I think the system of DD and Diablo good in that point that
you have to plan quickly (although I had some problems with that in DD
`cause I cant apply the right spell onto the right charakter (maybe cause I `ve been too lazy to patch by now <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/sleepey.gif" alt="" />)),
but I on the other hand like turnbased games too.
The Northland Saga of DSA was a very good trilogy with a nice combat system,
and still one of my favorite games allthough not an RPG Battle Isle 2,
where I `ve got to arrange my whole army every turn, and can train every unit
to get a perfekt killer, and after I arranged them I can see all armies
kill each other in video sequences (I liked the old vector graphics,
always looked nice to see the shots travel the way to you enemy crushing him to pieces, hehe)(another good one was history line, nice fight action with realistic story surrounding (at that time I created a referate about the first world war for school due to facts of that game <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />))