Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Well, to be fair RTS controls are not the end-all-be-all of videogame control schemes. It's fair to say that party movement can be improved, but I don't understand why would we ask Larian to overhaul the control scheme for the game.

In my opinion, the control scheme has never been the issue.

How well dangerous terrain, traps, etc. are communicated on screen, party members walking through fire when it wasn't clicked on, and the camera bouncing around were issues. Those issues would still be there with an RTS control scheme.
Well, what can I say? I disagree pretty much on all fronts.
Saying that "RTS controls aren't the end-all-be-all" sounds a bit dismissive without offering a valid alternative.
It's not dismissive, lots of games have control schemes. For Baldur's Gate 3, I don't see any criteria that makes one control scheme more valid than the other. We're not harvesting minerals and vespene gas to build a barracks in Baldur's Gate 3. Innately Baldur's Gate 3 is not a micro-intensive game, the issue is that the characters get stuck on objects or surfaces which was an issue in D:OS2. (The difference with D:OS2 is that the party members had larger HP pools than D&D/BG3 so the player could laugh about it in that game. Baldur's Gate 3 it's a nuisance. And all derivatives of jump didn't have fall damage in D:OS2.)

Essentially small issues with controls in D:OS2 are in our face in Baldur's Gate 3.

Originally Posted by Tuco
It ignores the crux of the issue: if you can come up with something better feel free to describe it, but so far they are the pinnacle of the genre and for a good reason: they are the control scheme born and refined precisely in the genre that makes MANDATORY to control of multiple units as quickly, simply and intuitively as possible. How good they are at it? Good enough to be the standard in their own competitive genre.
The game isn't fast-paced so you don't need to move the party at a fast pace.
The AI should be smart enough to move safely out of combat. Not jump off a cliff and fall prone, or walk through fire, or get stuck when told to jump over fire.

Originally Posted by Tuco
Why would we ask Larian to overhaul the control shceme? Who else are we supposed to ask to, for god's sake? They are the ones developing it.
I'm just saying an overhaul isn't needed, but refinement. It's okay to point out issues with party movement, but I don't see the value in telling Larian to go a specific route. It's okay to point out the problem and let Larian address it internally.

Originally Posted by Tuco
And something situational as "dangerous terrain and traps" feel incredibly marginal compared to an issue that will be front and center of the experience for the entirety of a gameplay session.

If anything, I'd agree that with revamped controls a tweaked camera would be also welcomed, but that pretty much comes with the territory. In particular I would gladly do without the inane degree of deformation that comes between things at different levels of elevation and/or distance from the lens.
I'm hoping for the best for the employees who have to improve camera movement. The camera has issues with so many sections of the map.

The issue is the execution of the control scheme. RTS controls would give more opportunities to micro-manage the team, but that still wouldn't fix the issues.

Do we really want to have to micro each character around a hazardous surface, jumping obstacle, etc?
Or should the AI be smart enough to avoid issues out of combat?

The questions above are the point I'm trying to make. (For example, I'd only be asking for standard RTS controls if BG3 was real-time PvP like Warcraft 3 or Dota 2)

There are some out-of-the-box solutions:
F1-4 already lets us select characters. It would be nice if pressing F did the action group all/ungroup all.
The game doesn't need a scheme as complex as Starcraft 2.