Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 29 of 33 1 2 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by GM4Him
I disagree. Counterspell is much more complicated than that. There are MANY level 3+ spells that would completely waste Counterspell. The Presets would need to be more in depth or you could waste Counterspell on something like Beacon of Hope. Remember, it counters ANY spell, not just attack wizard spells like Fireball.

It is more complicated in DnD but it doesnt have to be in BG3.

This was just an exemple. It could only trigger against level 3+ offensive spells, or something else wink

Still not good enough. Haste is not an offensive spell, but I might want to counter it to stop an enemy from using it.

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
All "I might want to" aren't achievable in video games...

Last edited by Maximuuus; 07/08/22 05:47 PM.
Joined: Aug 2020
addict
Online Content
addict
Joined: Aug 2020
I mean Solasta managed to do as far as reactions are concerned. If Larian CAN'T do it, but a studio with barely a fraction of Larian's budget did, that doesn't reflect well on them. I honestly don't think Larian wants to implement faithful reactions, but even if they did, I get the feeling that the engine they've chosen to use wouldn't work to implement it anyway, so they're stick where they stand, for the most part.

Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
Except they are, Max, in that other game that has a functional reaction system, I think you know its name. It's *quite* achievable.


Originally Posted by 7d7
I read carefully this very long thread

I feel you need to consider the aim of the game is to port dnd to a video game format while making it accessible and flow well.

Solasta system with reaction is faithful to the rules but not accessible and poor in terms of flow (let's face it sometime I would even rather avoid an encounter becaus EOF the clunkiness). Also consider if MP would be twice as many pop up (prepare to refuse caster to your party).

Because DM are the reason why reactions work in dnd, the only practical solution imo are presetted readied action. I posted overwatch as a well known tactical RPG example but then it would always be an imperfect solution (e.g. shot the first enemy in my line of sight vs. shot that goblin with low hp if it enters my line of sight and ignore the others)

Considering Larian they would (and should) favour accessible contents to 100% implementation.


I had a bit of hard time understanding exactly what you were saying here, 7d7 - I'm assuming you''re using a machine translation? I apologise if I misunderstand anything, and I do not wish to offend, however...

- Solasta's rendition of the reaction system is Exceptionally accessible - It explains itself in clean, clear language, doesn't over-do that explanation, and makes the function very easy to understand even for someone who doesn't know the game system. Accessibility of its systems is one of the things they do very well there. BG3 on the other hand, is extremely Inaccessible, in the sense that it doesn't adequately explain its system, it doesn't have any documentation to read or access if you want to understand why something happened that you didn't understand, it uses inconsistent language all over the place, and it often fails to show the same level of information or detail consistently - if it ever shows it at all, which in many cases it simply does not. It fails to communicate when certain abilities don't work, but usually doesn't tell you why they didn't, and its interface gives often abjectly misleading or false information (see: targeting circles and character highlights for spells and abilities that then do not actually hit or target those characters - a day one (earlier - it was a problem in D:OS2 as well and was never fixed there) problem that still persists). The controls are temperamental, imprecise and don't allow players proper control of their characters, even for something as simple as movement or targeting. One of these games is very accessible, and one of these games is far, far less so. BG3 is not the winner here.

- The flow is fine, and the reaction system does not slow this down in any appreciable way. In fact it streamlines the combats more effectively in most cases. I've spent far longer messing around fighting BBG3's control UI trying to get my character to move where I want, or to cast the spell I want them to cast without moving somewhere I don't want them to, than I EVER have debating whether to take a reaction or not in Solasta. In BG3, I spend a good amount of time every combat battling against the game UI, and wasting time grappling with a clunky control system when I'd rather be playing the game. I never feel like I'm wasting my time ineffectively or like I'm not actively playing the game in Solasta - especially when I do have to think for an extra second or two about whether I want to burn a counterspell on something or not. In terms of game flow in combat, Solasta currently has BG3 beat hands down, no questions.

- DMs are not the reason reactions work in D&D... I'm not sure where you're going with this or what kind of a statement that is supposed to be, I'm sorry; could you perhaps explain what you're trying to say there a little more?

- As many people have explained in detail throughout this thread and others, no system of presets is EVER going to be satisfactory when weighed against an actually functional reaction system that gives the player control of their own abilities. A functional reaction system can include settings for automaton if players want it, and a functional reaction system is quite possible, and not, in fact, terribly difficult to do... I suppose, unless you're trying to hack-job it into a game engine that was originally designed for something else and is just being viciously cribbbed, stitched and cludged to manage a D&D system entirely unlike the purpose for which said game engine was originally written, rather than designing a new engine to-purpose and to suit the new big-budget project they were embarking on... But Larian is a professional company, so I'm sure they wouldn't do something as offensively trashy as that. Right?

Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
All "I might want to" aren't achievable in video games...

I don't mean to frustrate you Max, but I have tried to create the blanket preset for counter spell myself. It has many issues.

Imagine you are fighting a powerful enemy and there is a cleric with revivify. You kill the enemy and the cleric casts revivify. You would probably want to counter that spell.

Imagine an enemy is casting conjure animal. That could literally turn the tide of battle if you are having to fight eight wolves. You might want to counter that spell.

An enemy casts Darkness. That's only level two. You're stuck in a chokehold and can't get out of that area. You might want to counter that spell because it can seriously hinder your entire party.

An enemy is casting silence. That's not an attack spell or a level 3 or higher spell. You might want to counter that or your wizard will suddenly be seriously hindered. Again if you can't get out of the silence radius you could be in serious trouble.

On the other hand, you might not want to waste your counter spell on something like barkskin or stone skin, but if an enemy has a high armor class already you may want to. There are just too many variables to account for.

And what if you don't want to waste your reaction at all on counter spell? If you are in a vertical area with lots of pitfalls, you may want to reserve your reaction for something more like featherfall. Again too many variables.

I'm not totally disagreeing with the preset concept, but I think it needs a bit more to it than simply blanket presets.

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Larian is working on a AAA turn based cRPG.
Solasta is basicaly a tabletop simulator.

It will not damage Larian's image at all if BG3 is not as faithfull to DnD as Solasta is... IF they succeed at creating a good
gameplay that improve the turn base genre with a new system inspired by DnD's reaction.

But IF reactions only remains ON/OFF toggle, they'll let BG3 with a sub-uninterresting system that neither improve the turn base experience as a whole nor does it take any advantage of the appeal of dnd's reaction system: allowing us to choose things to do during the enemy's turns.

That's the only thing they should keep in mind.

What you don't get in mind @GM is that I don't mind what "I might want to". A game is made of rules that tells you what you can do. As soon as the rules allow me a bit deeper choices than "ON/OFF" toggle, I'm fine if it doesn't allow me to "imagine" what I might want to do but tell me what I can do.

The game define the rules...
If it was written in DnD that "counterspell can counter any level 3+ offensive spells once / turn at the cost of a level 3 spellslot on 3 targets - you can select new targets at every round until a spell is countered", I'd be happy.
I'd be fine in my life if this was the rules of BG3, especially if it makes combats even more dynamic when I'm just watching the game playing itself.

Coupled with the new swarm AI combats could for the most part look absolutely "real time" while being turn based.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 07/08/22 09:38 PM.
Joined: Sep 2017
G
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
G
Joined: Sep 2017
FYI: everyone should read this post from Larian's new community manager a few days ago

https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=825365#Post825365

Quote
Hey everyone,

While we're actively working on Baldur's Gate 3, there's still more coming to Early Access, in no small part driven by community feedback such as this.

While in Early Access, design is in flux as we work to build & implement new systems & features.
How reactions are handled in the game is an example of a that is system currently being explored internally, but we're not yet ready to talk about it.
We've been eagerly reading your feedback and discussing it with the teams, but we prefer to show rather than tell.

Feel free to comment in the forums or on our social Media, to your heart's content!
We aim to interact with you as much as we possibly can.
So again: Thank you for being a part of our community!

Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by gaymer
FYI: everyone should read this post from Larian's new community manager a few days ago

https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=825365#Post825365

Well, I did read it, and while I appreciate someone finally making a (vague) declaration of intents from the studio, just as a word of warning I'd advise people against starting doing celebratory laps around the arena until something actually comes out of this.

Last edited by Tuco; 07/08/22 07:45 PM.
Joined: Sep 2017
G
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
G
Joined: Sep 2017
Sadly, that's all we have. I do believe they are trying but it's not a sure thing they can overcome an engine that isn't designed for this at it's core.

Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
What you don't get in mind @GM is that I don't mind what "I might want to". A game is made of rules that tells you what you can do. As soon as the rules allow me a bit deeper choices than "ON/OFF" toggle, I'm fine if it doesn't allow me to "imagine" what I might want to do but tell me what I can do.

The game define the rules...
If it was written in DnD that "counterspell can counter any level 3+ offensive spells once / turn at the cost of a level 3 spellslot on 3 targets - you can select new targets at every round until a spell is countered", I'd be happy.
I'd be fine in my life if this was the rules of BG3, especially if it makes combats even more dynamic when I'm just watching the game playing itself.

Coupled with the new swarm AI combats could for the most part look absolutely "real time" while being turn based.

I'm one of the people trying to get a compromise. I think a quasi-preset/prompt system would be far better than what we have and possibly better than just a flat Solasta-style prompt system. And I get what you're saying.

What I'm saying, though, is that there is a strong probability that players will get frustrated if the preset system isn't a bit more complicated than a blanket level 3+ offensive spell preset.

There are WAY too many variables, and that's my point. This is just 1 potential.

Enemy casts Vampiric Touch, a level 3 spell. You use your reaction to Counterspell because of your blanket preset. Enemy wizard then casts Fireball and devastates your party.

With a prompt system, you would have control to say, "No. I don't want to stop a stupid Vampiric Touch spell. There's a high level mage sitting there who hasn't taken a turn yet. I'll save Counterspell for him in case he does Fireball."

But, with a preset Spell List where you, the player decides which spells are on that list, YOU have control to say Vampiric Touch doesn't make the Counterspell cut. The presets need to be more specific so players don't get frustrated that they lose a level 3 spell slot for something they think isn't worth it. Either that or just do prompts because I personally would be super pissed if my party was wiped by a Fireball because my mage used Counterspell on a spell like Vampiric Touch.

Especially consider surfaces. Goblin throws grease bottle. Mage 1 casts Vampiric Touch and I waste Counterspell Reaction. Mage 2 does Fireball which does even more damage because of grease.

I don't mind tweaking spells and rules, but Counterspell saves lives IF used right. One wrong use of it though, especially if it is because I had no control of when I cast it, could be game over. If the computer is deciding that, and I have no control, I'm gonna be very unhappy with Larian's design.

Last edited by GM4Him; 08/08/22 02:16 AM.
Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
Quote
We aim to interact with you as much as we possibly can.

Well, if that's what you've been aiming for, Larian, I most definitely don't want to be within ten miles of you when you're holding a firearm.

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by GM4Him
What I'm saying, though, is that there is a strong probability that players will get frustrated if the preset system isn't a bit more complicated than a blanket level 3+ offensive spell preset.

Are you frustrated when you play Xcom if your overwatch doesnt trigger on a specific ennemy ?

You aren't because that's the rule of the game.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Online Embarrased
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by Niara
Quote
We aim to interact with you as much as we possibly can.
Well, if that's what you've been aiming for, Larian, I most definitely don't want to be within ten miles of you when you're holding a firearm.
Savage ...
But true.


In the words of the senior NCO instructor at cadet battalion:
“If you ain’t cheating you ain’t trying. And if you got caught you didn’t try hard enough!”
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by GM4Him
What I'm saying, though, is that there is a strong probability that players will get frustrated if the preset system isn't a bit more complicated than a blanket level 3+ offensive spell preset.

Are you frustrated when you play Xcom if your overwatch doesnt trigger on a specific ennemy ?

You aren't because that's the rule of the game.

Different games, different rules, different resources involved and situations at stake.

For one, XCOM is basically “alpha strike: the official game” where you are supposed to blast everything during your team’s turn and Overwatch is basically the throwaway option (that comes with the aim penalty too) when you don’t have anything better to do.

Last edited by Tuco; 08/08/22 06:20 AM.
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
The point Tuco is mostly that if a specific spell, class feature or any other reaction stuff was written differently in the PHB, most of you wouldn't care because it would just be the rules.
I guess most players but "some" DnD and eventually "Solasta" fans would be fine with not having a faithfull translation of the TT reaction system in BG3.

Especially if it makes combats more dynamic and ennemies turns more appealing to watch.

Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Well, sure.
If Chess was Checkers we wouldn't complain about missing the horses and queen, either.

"More dynamic" sounds a fairly vague concept (I find more "dynamic" being able to influence the outcome than sit and watch, for a start) and "more appealing" sounds pretty damn subjective.
Few things appeal to me like getting the chance to use a Counterspell with great effect at the right moment, for instance.

Last edited by Tuco; 08/08/22 08:23 AM.
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by Tuco
Well, sure.
If Chess was Checkers we wouldn't complain about missing the horses and queen, either.

You got it wink

Last edited by Maximuuus; 08/08/22 09:13 AM.
Joined: Aug 2022
7
7d7 Offline
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
7
Joined: Aug 2022
Originally Posted by Niara
Except they are, Max, in that other game that has a functional reaction system, I think you know its name. It's *quite* achievable.



I had a bit of hard time understanding exactly what you were saying here, 7d7 - I'm assuming you''re using a machine translation? I apologise if I misunderstand anything, and I do not wish to offend, however...

- Solasta's rendition of the reaction system is Exceptionally accessible - It explains itself in clean, clear language, doesn't over-do that explanation, and makes the function very easy to understand even for someone who doesn't know the game system. Accessibility of its systems is one of the things they do very well there. BG3 on the other hand, is extremely Inaccessible, in the sense that it doesn't adequately explain its system, it doesn't have any documentation to read or access if you want to understand why something happened that you didn't understand, it uses inconsistent language all over the place, and it often fails to show the same level of information or detail consistently - if it ever shows it at all, which in many cases it simply does not. It fails to communicate when certain abilities don't work, but usually doesn't tell you why they didn't, and its interface gives often abjectly misleading or false information (see: targeting circles and character highlights for spells and abilities that then do not actually hit or target those characters - a day one (earlier - it was a problem in D:OS2 as well and was never fixed there) problem that still persists). The controls are temperamental, imprecise and don't allow players proper control of their characters, even for something as simple as movement or targeting. One of these games is very accessible, and one of these games is far, far less so. BG3 is not the winner here.

- The flow is fine, and the reaction system does not slow this down in any appreciable way. In fact it streamlines the combats more effectively in most cases. I've spent far longer messing around fighting BBG3's control UI trying to get my character to move where I want, or to cast the spell I want them to cast without moving somewhere I don't want them to, than I EVER have debating whether to take a reaction or not in Solasta. In BG3, I spend a good amount of time every combat battling against the game UI, and wasting time grappling with a clunky control system when I'd rather be playing the game. I never feel like I'm wasting my time ineffectively or like I'm not actively playing the game in Solasta - especially when I do have to think for an extra second or two about whether I want to burn a counterspell on something or not. In terms of game flow in combat, Solasta currently has BG3 beat hands down, no questions.

- DMs are not the reason reactions work in D&D... I'm not sure where you're going with this or what kind of a statement that is supposed to be, I'm sorry; could you perhaps explain what you're trying to say there a little more?

- As many people have explained in detail throughout this thread and others, no system of presets is EVER going to be satisfactory when weighed against an actually functional reaction system that gives the player control of their own abilities. A functional reaction system can include settings for automaton if players want it, and a functional reaction system is quite possible, and not, in fact, terribly difficult to do... I suppose, unless you're trying to hack-job it into a game engine that was originally designed for something else and is just being viciously cribbbed, stitched and cludged to manage a D&D system entirely unlike the purpose for which said game engine was originally written, rather than designing a new engine to-purpose and to suit the new big-budget project they were embarking on... But Larian is a professional company, so I'm sure they wouldn't do something as offensively trashy as that. Right?

A. I would disagree. I have nothing against solasta. I w ould expect players without pre-existing dnd experience to struggle. I feel solasta and BG3 have different targets in mind

B. I personally find the flow in solasta to be slow at point. Again it is situationnal depending on party composition etc.. and ultimately depending on personal opinion. I would agree to disagree on that one.

C. Let me rephrase. A game would have to consider every possible reaction and prompt you to act. With a DM you would simply interrupt him and start a discussion. A massive difference in my opinion.

D. I agree. Compromise would have to be made. I would rather have some presets than no reaction at all. Overwatch among other solutions of automated reaction would be a middle ground that would satisfy me. Given the absence of DM we are feeling the limitation of the video game environment here.

Last edited by 7d7; 08/08/22 09:31 AM. Reason: Spelling
Joined: Aug 2021
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Aug 2021
Just sunk a couple of weekends into Solasta. Prompts are great imo, but Solasta's aren't perfect. Here are a few things BG3's prompts should avoid.

  • Too much text. It's fairly short for Shield ("Giant Spider is attacking Tav, you can cast the Shield spell to block the attack") but even that sentence could be edited down. I can't find the full text for the Counterspell prompt at the moment, but it's far longer and buries relevant information within repetitive phrases. This is all good for explaining what's going on the first time a prompt happens, but the way the information is presented could be cleaned up.
  • The camera can't move while the prompt window is active. (I think. It may be down to user error). Some reaction decisions require a measure of battlefield awareness; looking around helps with that.
  • Simultaneous reactions aren't intuitive (to me). Classic example: an enemy exits the zone of control exerted by two of my PCs at the same time. The prompt window shows both of my PCs able to make an Attack of Opportunity, but they can't both take a swing. When I pick a PC to react, the window closes and the other PC does nothing. Positive : grouping reactions in the same window; negative: having the grouped reaction window eat one of my PC's reaction.
  • The prompt will occasionally pop up even if you can't take the action. (Wizard casts Magic Missile on target who responds with Shield. Prompt comes up for Counterspell on Shield. I click 'Yes', but the Counterspell doesn't happen as Solasta won't let you cast two leveled spells a turn.) This is more bug territory than anything else, but any reaction system relies on a robust system of conditional checks. Make sure it works, please.


That last one may not be too helpful... It's hard to be in a helpful mood when Larian's first message (22 into months into EA) says “[they] aim to interact with [us] as much as [they] possibly can”. This statement may not technically be a lie, but no fact corroborates it.


TRIBE!
Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by 7d7
C. Let me rephrase. A game would have to consider every possible reaction and prompt you to act. With a DM you would simply interrupt him and start a discussion. A massive difference in my opinion.

[...]

Given the absence of DM we are feeling the limitation of the video game environment here.

Except, as Already Established With Incontrovertible, Tangible Proof, it is indeed quite possible and very straight forward to put a reaction system in the game that works with all viable reactions as defined by the ruleset we're using. It's been done. It works. Reactions are specific things, with specific rules and specific triggers - they aren't fluffy 'hash it out with your dm' things - they're a literal, mechanically described part of the system. They only come up in specific situations, and only when their individual triggers are met. They can only happen once per round for each player. Watch any D&D stream you like - is the combat bogged down by a constant stream of player reactions? No, it's not... and it isn't in a video game format either, as others have posted very credible video proof of.

Having an opinion is fine, but when that opinion runs contra to established and demonstrated evidence, it is not an argument - it's just stubbornness.

Edit for the above post:

I don't recall to clearly about the text, but it never seemed like a lot to me, personally. I recall counterspell just being "Enemy Mage is casting a spell (Blight), would you like to cast Counterspell?" I may be mistaken though, my recollection isn't clear. Either way - yes, the text in the prompts should be short, to the point and clear, regardless of anything else.

I absolutely agree that you should be able to assess the battlefield before making your choice, including spinning the map about to see what else you might have to consider, yes. I've never had a problem with that in Solasta, because generally the map zoom and positioning is good enough to let me see everything I need to, but in the odd case it doesn't, that would be much desired. BG3 is terrible at letting you see what you need to in general, so it must let you move the view around while deciding.

I think the grouped reaction only giving you one, that you're experiencing, is a bug, or else you're misreading the screen. In Solasta, if an enemy leaves the controlled space of three of your party members, they can each react, and all three can choose to use their reactions, some of them can, or none of them can. You absolutely have control of who swings and who doesn't and you're not limited to picking just one.

Agreed on the last point -they've had a few other little bugs here and there to work out - in the early stages reactions refreshed at the top of the round, not by character turn, and that caused issues. They've since fixed that one though.

Last edited by Niara; 08/08/22 09:58 AM.
Page 29 of 33 1 2 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Moderated by  Nicou 

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