Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 74 of 95 1 2 72 73 74 75 76 94 95
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by AnonySimon
Although if I am being completely honest, this is all I really want. I don't really care if it is Turn-Based as long as I can A) Play Single Player, B) Have A Full Party, AND C) Not Have To Micromanage Every Character Each Round.



Alllll the way back in 1988, we had a turn-based D&D computer game which allowed you to individually set one or more members of your party to automatic mode, where the computer would control them in combat for you. So, it's definitely possible! (It was the original Pool of Radiance.)

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
I wasn't even talking about BG3 though. I have no illusions that we might get a RTwP option for BG3. I was speaking in general about where things could go in the future for the party-based cRPG genre.

Joined: Oct 2020
W
stranger
Offline
stranger
W
Joined: Oct 2020
So far, I am pleasantly surprised how fluid and engaging a full party multiplayer run is. Even though it is turn-based, when each player can individually control their character, and nobody has to control a NPC, the game goes so fast it's almost like real-time, at least until it gets to the opponent's turn. Then we get the full turn-based experience. I now GREATLY prefer playing this game with a full multiplayer party due to the fluidity that it allows in battle. I hope they create an option in single player to allow AI controlled party members so that I can have a similar single player experience and therefore still get the full enjoyment of what NPC relationships and side quests provide.

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Only if it is optional. Controlling all of my party members myself is the most important part of what makes an RPG fun for me. I don't find it difficult or cumbersome at all to control even a party of six entirely myself in RTwP. It is what makes the game fun and awesome.

Joined: Oct 2020
W
stranger
Offline
stranger
W
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Only if it is optional. Controlling all of my party members myself is the most important part of what makes an RPG fun for me. I don't find it difficult or cumbersome at all to control even a party of six entirely myself in RTwP. It is what makes the game fun and awesome.


For sure optional. I find it easy to control a party of 6 with RTwP. I can tell all of them what to do in no time. But i'm able to do it all at once. With turn-based, even doing only 4 is a drag, because i have to do them one at a time and watch each of them carry out their orders before i can move to the next. Maybe allow me to start giving orders to the 2nd party member while the first one is carrying out his attack? I don't know...in the single player fights i just get bogged down and my attention starts to drift, especially in big fights.

Joined: Oct 2020
C
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
C
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by WeiShiLindon
I find it easy to control a party of 6 with RTwP. I can tell all of them what to do in no time. But i'm able to do it all at once. With turn-based, even doing only 4 is a drag, because i have to do them one at a time and watch each of them carry out their orders before i can move to the next. Maybe allow me to start giving orders to the 2nd party member while the first one is carrying out his attack? I don't know...in the single player fights i just get bogged down and my attention starts to drift, especially in big fights.


Watching them carry out their orders isn't even the major issue since you generally want to see if your command was successful or not. The major issue is having to wait for the AI to go about their turns, at which point I'm already on another monitor browsing the web or watching a stream.

Joined: Oct 2020
W
stranger
Offline
stranger
W
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by coredumped


Watching them carry out their orders isn't even the major issue since you generally want to see if your command was successful or not. The major issue is having to wait for the AI to go about their turns, at which point I'm already on another monitor browsing the web or watching a stream.


Agreed.

Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
Originally Posted by coredumped
Watching them carry out their orders isn't even the major issue since you generally want to see if your command was successful or not. The major issue is having to wait for the AI to go about their turns, at which point I'm already on another monitor browsing the web or watching a stream.


Part of that is that optimization hasn't happened, because the game isn't feature complete, and re-doing optimization repeatedly is a waste of resources. But the AI can't all move at once even once optimized, because you'd lose track of what they did, and their decisions affect your plan.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
With some tweaking, the turn based system will be even more fun. It already feels as it is approaching the feel of 5e, but with the added fun and action needed for a video game. The tactics you can pull of are staggering. The system feels fair and if you pull off some sweet tactical moves that has huge impacts, it does not feel cheap but very rewarding. You have to think, and that's a good thing.

Joined: Jan 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Jan 2020
It is not a debate , turn based is far superior , if you want the other type you should go back to 1980

Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
Originally Posted by Kabeidon
if you want the other type you should go back to 1980

Real-time with pause CRPGs didn't exist in 1980, they came about 15 years later.

Turn-based CRPGS, however, have been around since the 1970s.

hehe

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
I'm glad they made a containment thread for this, but I just don't fondly remember rtwp and recent games with it I think were worse for it, not better.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Personalty I am not a D&D fan but a Baldurs gate games fan first.

I cant remember but were people complaining that much when BG1 and BG2 came out for not being close enough to Av.2nd edition?? Right now 5e D&D lovers are just ripping the game apart for not having this and that system...For myself Im complaining that its not close enough to that BG2 experience...: Some form of active combat, day/night cycles and its effects on the world, tons of party banters/interactions with many party members including a multitude of dialogue choices, interesting quests/sidequests also tied to a multitude of NPCs that can join the party...

I feel that these "cinematic dialogues" is hindering so much the game (not the cinematic cutscenes which look great) There could of been so much more interesting joinable characters and dialogues if it wasn't for those SLOW "cringy", awkward animated dialogues. Responses MUST usually be short and fit that cinematic style...very very different from the book like feel of BG2. You gota read, and thats the problem nowdays. These cinematics will NOT age well.

Last edited by mr_planescapist; 17/10/20 09:06 AM.
Joined: Jul 2019
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Jul 2019
I hope there will be an option for switching combat mode to RTwP. I'm not a fan of turn-based combat.

Joined: Oct 2020
T
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
T
Joined: Oct 2020
I like it as it is!

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by Worm
I just don't fondly remember rtwp and recent games with it I think were worse for it, not better.

And I would say exactly the same thing about TB games.

Joined: Oct 2020
R
stranger
Offline
stranger
R
Joined: Oct 2020
(just sharing my thoughts to the core Larian community - hopefully we have a more civilized audience here than on steam and you guys will understand my point of view even though you may disagree, the same way I'm trying to understand the opposite view)

The BG/IWD franchise I also grew up with (I was 14 when BG1 released and I still have the box with its countless CDs somewhere) introduced me to the genre. I am not a DnD hardcode gamer, I concede that, I have not read any of the DnD edition books either but BG is a cherished memory I'll have for the rest of my (gaming) life, that's for sure, it's a reference that will never disappear given the impact it had at the age I was. Since then I've always secretly hopped for BG3 for the past 25years (yes I'm a boomer).
I gladly bought the EA, the price is right, I'm glad of its success and the view it gives to the gaming community on Larian, who I see as one of the best gaming company in terms of quality, dedication and communication to their players. I've bought and played DOS1/2 though I haven't finished any of them (mostly due to combat mechanics and time constraints - but not my point here), I can tell those games are top of the genre but I've always had the biaised thinking of comparing to BG/IWD (I apologize for that - you always keep a thing for your first love).

That being said, I am clearly and greatly impressed by the work Larian did for BG3: the visuals and graphics, all the graphical technologies are just astonishing.
What has concerned me rapidly upon waking up in the nautiloid was the feeling of déjà vu, namely DOS déjà vu. I've almost instantly felt like what prevented me from diving in to the end of the Larian original franchise would be similar or related in BG3. This feeling strengthened when I met the first pack trash mobs, the good looking and funny imps.

I concede and now understand, after having read countless threads on steam forums, that it seems the turn-by-turn style is a requirement and a necessity from the 5th edition of DnD (bare with me as I said I haven't read nor am I a harcode DnD ruleset scholar): but I feel like for players like me, who didn't need to be DnD scholars to enjoy BG/IWD to the bone, this is an existential clash with our memories of BG1/2.

See, for players like me, I feel like the story telling and immersion is much more important and entertaining than having to optimize combat tactics on every single trash mob packs. Therefore, combat has a need for dynamism, which I hope you would concede that turn-by-turn doesn't have as opposed to real time with pause (also this can be argued depending on the meaning of the encounter - imps who cares, story turning point encounter is very important; so you'd pause at every action). I used to save constantly before an encounter in BG1/2 and many times RTwP would be my defeat, the very reason I would die because as some say it can be "chaotic". However, this was part if not most of the fun. I would do and redo many encounters, in a dynamic way, and when I felt real time was too hard, I would then pause for each action (now in TbT mode) and take the time to think of my strategies. In a meaningful story encounter, during story turning points I would basically be so careful I would pause every single time, those fight encounters needed my full attention, I was sucked into the story and the fight because of that immersion.

What I'm trying to say (it's hard to nuance all these feelings) is that it's ok to fail and die and retry in an RTwP approach, you get cocky and run into the fight, sometimes it does work out, sometimes it doesn't. When it does there is a rewarding feeling too, when it doesn't, well you try again and be more tactical, you pause and think. In a de facto TbT approach you gotta think all the time even for meaningless encounters (I'm referring to a pack of trash imps for ex.). This, to me, hurts the replayability and takes way too much time: I've started maybe a few times my character but after a while spending 10min on the same imps pack it is not so entertaining anymore, I wish I could just bash and pass through them when I've understood how that encounter works. In fact, it's almost like a way to speed things up to resume to the story point I want to reach or to the point which I haven't done yet (for ex: explore this part first and this other part with another character): it's always about the story and the immersion in my opinion.
This is why I find the TbT only combat style too slow in terms of replayability (first encounter, if I'm cautious I would pause) but after getting a feel of the game and fight mechanics I would want to have more fun and just bash my way through. To me this is a fondamental part of the immersion into the story.
I play RPG first and foremost for the story, I want to play a role, mostly singleplayer (I'm old school), I'm pretending I'm this or that and I would want the game mechanics to support that need, this is what entertains me. As currently it feels like the other way around: the combat game mechanics support the story. I find the most fun when I'm kept immerged into the story and the game mechanic helps me stay that godly warrior (or whatever class you're playing), for that to stay immerged there's gotta be a dynamic.
On top of my head, if RTwP is not implementable (for some technical reasons), I would still think there might be ways to mitigate this, although I have no pretention to suggest other than auto combat for party members. Keep in mind I'm a single RPG player.

Finally, I'm not criticizing, I'm already grateful of having EA BG3 but I already know I will not be able to throw more than a dozen hours into BG3 because of that combat mechanic, I will probably never see the end game and will end up watching youtube videos to get a taste of what the story is and try to find any well explained spoiler article and then just move on. It feels sad, but at the end of the day it is only a game. This will not impact me as BG1/2 have done. However, BG3 has the potential to leave a mark in the gaming community psyche that will still be alive in 30 years from now, as BG1 has done, every gamer from the 90s has played it and if they didn't, they know the power behind the name. This power comes from BG1 and there is a reason for that.

I hope some at Larian will read this and that I will be understood. I'm not asking to change the game if it cannot, just only to understanding how some players (I'm sure I'm not alone, it can't be) approach an RPG, especially one of the reasons BG1/2 IWD1/2 and countless clones (PoE1/2 Tyranny and others I forget) have had so much success. BG1 is and will always be the one true icon of its genre for players who discovered what an RPG looks like when we were teenagers.

I wish Larian great successes and still have high hopes for BG3 even though I just cannot immerge myself into the game as it is currently.

Thanks for reading

Last edited by rik oder; 17/10/20 03:08 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
H
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
H
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by rik oder
(just sharing my thoughts to the core Larian community - hopefully we have a more civilized audience here than on steam and you guys will understand my point of view even though you may disagree, the same way I'm trying to understand the opposite view)

The BG/IWD franchise I also grew up with (I was 14 when BG1 released and I still have the box with its countless CDs somewhere) introduced me to the genre. I am not a DnD hardcode gamer, I concede that, I have not read any of the DnD edition books either but BG is a cherished memory I'll have for the rest of my (gaming) life, that's for sure, it's a reference that will never disappear given the impact it had at the age I was. Since then I've always secretly hopped for BG3 for the past 25years (yes I'm a boomer).
I gladly bought the EA, the price is right, I'm glad of its success and the view it gives to the gaming community on Larian, who I see as one of the best gaming company in terms of quality, dedication and communication to their players. I've bought and played DOS1/2 though I haven't finished any of them (mostly due to combat mechanics and time constraints - but not my point here), I can tell those games are top of the genre but I've always had the biaised thinking of comparing to BG/IWD (I apologize for that - you always keep a thing for your first love).

That being said, I am clearly and greatly impressed by the work Larian did for BG3: the visuals and graphics, all the graphical technologies are just astonishing.
What has concerned me rapidly upon waking up in the nautiloid was the feeling of déjà vu, namely DOS déjà vu. I've almost instantly felt like what prevented me from diving in to the end of the Larian original franchise would be similar or related in BG3. This feeling strengthened when I met the first pack trash mobs, the good looking and funny imps.

I concede and now understand, after having read countless threads on steam forums, that it seems the turn-by-turn style is a requirement and a necessity from the 5th edition of DnD (bare with me as I said I haven't read nor am I a harcode DnD ruleset scholar): but I feel like for players like me, who didn't need to be DnD scholars to enjoy BG/IWD to the bone, this is an existential clash with our memories of BG1/2.

See, for players like me, I feel like the story telling and immersion is much more important and entertaining than having to optimize combat tactics on every single trash mob packs. Therefore, combat has a need for dynamism, which I hope you would concede that turn-by-turn doesn't have as opposed to real time with pause (also this can be argued depending on the meaning of the encounter - imps who cares, story turning point encounter is very important; so you'd pause at every action). I used to save constantly before an encounter in BG1/2 and many times RTwP would be my defeat, the very reason I would die because as some say it can be "chaotic". However, this was part if not most of the fun. I would do and redo many encounters, in a dynamic way, and when I felt real time was too hard, I would then pause for each action (now in TbT mode) and take the time to think of my strategies. In a meaningful story encounter, during story turning points I would basically be so careful I would pause every single time, those fight encounters needed my full attention, I was sucked into the story and the fight because of that immersion.

What I'm trying to say (it's hard to nuance all these feelings) is that it's ok to fail and die and retry in an RTwP approach, you get cocky and run into the fight, sometimes it does work out, sometimes it doesn't. When it does there is a rewarding feeling too, when it doesn't, well you try again and be more tactical, you pause and think. In a de facto TbT approach you gotta think all the time even for meaningless encounters (I'm referring to a pack of trash imps for ex.). This, to me, hurts the replayability and takes way too much time: I've started maybe a few times my character but after a while spending 10min on the same imps pack it is not so entertaining anymore, I wish I could just bash and pass through them when I've understood how that encounter works. In fact, it's almost like a way to speed things up to resume to the story point I want to reach or to the point which I haven't done yet (for ex: explore this part first and this other part with another character): it's always about the story and the immersion in my opinion.
This is why I find the TbT only combat style too slow in terms of replayability (first encounter, if I'm cautious I would pause) but after getting a feel of the game and fight mechanics I would want to have more fun and just bash my way through. To me this is a fondamental part of the immersion into the story.
I play RPG first and foremost for the story, I want to play a role, mostly singleplayer (I'm old school), I'm pretending I'm this or that and I would want the game mechanics to support that need, this is what entertains me. As currently it feels like the other way around: the combat game mechanics support the story. I find the most fun when I'm kept immerged into the story and the game mechanic helps me stay that godly warrior (or whatever class you're playing), for that to stay immerged there's gotta be a dynamic.
On top of my head, if RTwP is not implementable (for some technical reasons), I would still think there might be ways to mitigate this, although I have no pretention to suggest other than auto combat for party members. Keep in mind I'm a single RPG player.

Finally, I'm not criticizing, I'm already grateful of having EA BG3 but I already know I will not be able to throw more than a dozen hours into BG3 because of that combat mechanic, I will probably never see the end game and will end up watching youtube videos to get a taste of what the story is and try to find any well explained spoiler article and then just move on. It feels sad, but at the end of the day it is only a game. This will not impact me as BG1/2 have done. However, BG3 has the potential to leave a mark in the gaming community psyche that will still be alive in 30 years from now, as BG1 has done, every gamer from the 90s has played it and if they didn't, they know the power behind the name. This power comes from BG1 and there is a reason for that.

I hope some at Larian will read this and that I will be understood. I'm not asking to change the game if it cannot, just only to understanding how some players (I'm sure I'm not alone, it can't be) approach an RPG, especially one of the reasons BG1/2 IWD1/2 and countless clones (PoE1/2 Tyranny and others I forget) have had so much success. BG1 is and will always be the one true icon of its genre for players who discovered what an RPG looks like when we were teenagers.

I wish Larian great successes and still have high hopes for BG3 even though I just cannot immerge myself into the game as it is currently.

Thanks for reading


That is so well written, mate. Kudos!


If it's what it's takes to save the world, then the world doesn't deserves to be saved - Geralt
Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by rik oder
(just sharing my thoughts to the core Larian community - hopefully we have a more civilized audience here than on steam and you guys will understand my point of view even though you may disagree, the same way I'm trying to understand the opposite view)

The BG/IWD franchise I also grew up with (I was 14 when BG1 released and I still have the box with its countless CDs somewhere) introduced me to the genre. I am not a DnD hardcode gamer, I concede that, I have not read any of the DnD edition books either but BG is a cherished memory I'll have for the rest of my (gaming) life, that's for sure, it's a reference that will never disappear given the impact it had at the age I was. Since then I've always secretly hopped for BG3 for the past 25years (yes I'm a boomer).
I gladly bought the EA, the price is right, I'm glad of its success and the view it gives to the gaming community on Larian, who I see as one of the best gaming company in terms of quality, dedication and communication to their players. I've bought and played DOS1/2 though I haven't finished any of them (mostly due to combat mechanics and time constraints - but not my point here), I can tell those games are top of the genre but I've always had the biaised thinking of comparing to BG/IWD (I apologize for that - you always keep a thing for your first love).

That being said, I am clearly and greatly impressed by the work Larian did for BG3: the visuals and graphics, all the graphical technologies are just astonishing.
What has concerned me rapidly upon waking up in the nautiloid was the feeling of déjà vu, namely DOS déjà vu. I've almost instantly felt like what prevented me from diving in to the end of the Larian original franchise would be similar or related in BG3. This feeling strengthened when I met the first pack trash mobs, the good looking and funny imps.

I concede and now understand, after having read countless threads on steam forums, that it seems the turn-by-turn style is a requirement and a necessity from the 5th edition of DnD (bare with me as I said I haven't read nor am I a harcode DnD ruleset scholar): but I feel like for players like me, who didn't need to be DnD scholars to enjoy BG/IWD to the bone, this is an existential clash with our memories of BG1/2.

See, for players like me, I feel like the story telling and immersion is much more important and entertaining than having to optimize combat tactics on every single trash mob packs. Therefore, combat has a need for dynamism, which I hope you would concede that turn-by-turn doesn't have as opposed to real time with pause (also this can be argued depending on the meaning of the encounter - imps who cares, story turning point encounter is very important; so you'd pause at every action). I used to save constantly before an encounter in BG1/2 and many times RTwP would be my defeat, the very reason I would die because as some say it can be "chaotic". However, this was part if not most of the fun. I would do and redo many encounters, in a dynamic way, and when I felt real time was too hard, I would then pause for each action (now in TbT mode) and take the time to think of my strategies. In a meaningful story encounter, during story turning points I would basically be so careful I would pause every single time, those fight encounters needed my full attention, I was sucked into the story and the fight because of that immersion.

What I'm trying to say (it's hard to nuance all these feelings) is that it's ok to fail and die and retry in an RTwP approach, you get cocky and run into the fight, sometimes it does work out, sometimes it doesn't. When it does there is a rewarding feeling too, when it doesn't, well you try again and be more tactical, you pause and think. In a de facto TbT approach you gotta think all the time even for meaningless encounters (I'm referring to a pack of trash imps for ex.). This, to me, hurts the replayability and takes way too much time: I've started maybe a few times my character but after a while spending 10min on the same imps pack it is not so entertaining anymore, I wish I could just bash and pass through them when I've understood how that encounter works. In fact, it's almost like a way to speed things up to resume to the story point I want to reach or to the point which I haven't done yet (for ex: explore this part first and this other part with another character): it's always about the story and the immersion in my opinion.
This is why I find the TbT only combat style too slow in terms of replayability (first encounter, if I'm cautious I would pause) but after getting a feel of the game and fight mechanics I would want to have more fun and just bash my way through. To me this is a fondamental part of the immersion into the story.
I play RPG first and foremost for the story, I want to play a role, mostly singleplayer (I'm old school), I'm pretending I'm this or that and I would want the game mechanics to support that need, this is what entertains me. As currently it feels like the other way around: the combat game mechanics support the story. I find the most fun when I'm kept immerged into the story and the game mechanic helps me stay that godly warrior (or whatever class you're playing), for that to stay immerged there's gotta be a dynamic.
On top of my head, if RTwP is not implementable (for some technical reasons), I would still think there might be ways to mitigate this, although I have no pretention to suggest other than auto combat for party members. Keep in mind I'm a single RPG player.

Finally, I'm not criticizing, I'm already grateful of having EA BG3 but I already know I will not be able to throw more than a dozen hours into BG3 because of that combat mechanic, I will probably never see the end game and will end up watching youtube videos to get a taste of what the story is and try to find any well explained spoiler article and then just move on. It feels sad, but at the end of the day it is only a game. This will not impact me as BG1/2 have done. However, BG3 has the potential to leave a mark in the gaming community psyche that will still be alive in 30 years from now, as BG1 has done, every gamer from the 90s has played it and if they didn't, they know the power behind the name. This power comes from BG1 and there is a reason for that.

I hope some at Larian will read this and that I will be understood. I'm not asking to change the game if it cannot, just only to understanding how some players (I'm sure I'm not alone, it can't be) approach an RPG, especially one of the reasons BG1/2 IWD1/2 and countless clones (PoE1/2 Tyranny and others I forget) have had so much success. BG1 is and will always be the one true icon of its genre for players who discovered what an RPG looks like when we were teenagers.

I wish Larian great successes and still have high hopes for BG3 even though I just cannot immerge myself into the game as it is currently.

Thanks for reading


I don't share your view as of yet with BG3, but I wouldn't ever play through BG2 in it's entirety with only turn based as an option. As you've written, there are so many minor and low level encounters that are just easier to handle (BG2) with a lone warrior hacking away, so that you can continue on your adventure.

Potential issues would be timing actions and bonus actions, as well as making sure everyone stays somewhat within the range of actions allowed per round. The way BG2 handled that (timer) didn't work out too well in my experience.

Maybe there would be an intermediate option, similar to BG2, where you can set certain characters to auto-pilot (melee warriors) while you have a set or modifiable auto-pause triggers for casters, on target death etc.

From what I gather, Larian wants to have as much replayability as possible in the game and wants to encourage roleplaying the game in different ways and exploring alternative solutions during multiple playthroughs. For that alone, I think it's important to at least try and cater to the TBWP camp.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Just wanted to throw my 2 cents in the ring.

I think turn-based combat was a mistake for many reasons but the main one is because it is contradictory to the nature of video games and D&D. D&D is first and foremost about creating a simulation of a faux reality we cannot access in any other way than our imagination and theater of the mind. Video games are proto-simulations by their very nature. Turn based combat is like a glitch in the matrix, it's a crack in the simulation. This was acceptable and understandable in the past due to technical limitations and the industry not pulling the kind of audience or money that it is today but that is no longer the case. I'm not saying RTwP is perfect but it is definitely a step up from turn based combat in this regard. I could say more on this subject but I don't want to offend anyone or taint my sentiment with bias so I'll leave it at that.


I am here to discuss a video game. Please do not try to rope me into anything other than that. Thank you.
Page 74 of 95 1 2 72 73 74 75 76 94 95

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