Osvir

I want enemies to be immune, I want bosses to be immune, I personally don't think it's boring, it's frustrating. As long as I can leave the area and access some shop or something (even if I have to go through the entire dungeon back and forth). In IWD I had a whooping party that could defeat anything, well anything except the last boss. My party was strong, I had great gear and equipment, the only thing that was missing was 1 Hammer that I had just sold (learned later reading a guide that you're supposed to keep it, ah how should I have known?). I tried fighting the last boss 3 or 4 times before giving up, each time took about 30-40 minutes before my party died and the god damn boss was always at "Near Death" from Spells (which was the only thing capable of hurting him), the rest was "Immunity to damage". The real issue was that I couldn't leave the end-game tower and there were no shops to exchange my gear at in any way so I was practically stuck in an area and I couldn't change my "load out". I think that most people that got to the final boss in IWD probably beat him/her so I'm probably in the minority of the minority here, still don't want to get stuck in an end-game area that I can't leave. And if I can't leave it I want to have a secret shop or items in the end-game dungeon that I can use to change my "load out" in case I'd come across a similar situation.

I don't know why but for some reason I believe that many people think "Oh destructible environment" and think of Diablo action RPG-esque "smashing crates" type of thing. I think I believe that because that's kind of what I think myself.. why does it have to be treated like smashing crates and toppling down walls though? What if that house actually catches fire when you throw a Fireball and the world reacts to it? How does it not make sense? I just threw a Fireball inside a wooden barn with lots of hay and nothing started burning. Or in the forest, yeah, I unleashed my spell arsenal (fire) on those Druids because I wanted to watch them burn (evil character) but nothing happened. The spell's fizzled against the bark of the tree or something, oh well I did take down the entire Druid encampment population. Likewise, if I play a good character I might be more careful with where I place my spells, so I don't burn down the entire forest (Instead I might choose some friendlier spells in my Grimoire to cast). A destructible/interactive environment is definitely adding immersion in whichever way you look at it, just want to argue that (whether or not it in the game or not, and to what extent). Probably will cost more resources, unless there's some time or cost effective way to do it. Unrelated but related: I just watched a review of SimCity for SNES, fun stuff.

That bothered you as well? Then I realized "Oh right!" it's PhysX by the way, to be nit-picky. It's a graphics thingmabob. Mafia, Highest PhysX settings versus Lowest PhysX settings. I think this topic touches destructible environment and/or interactive environment and I say yes to that. I hope that Obsidian defines Material they use in their development early on (Wood is Wood, Stone is Stone), this way they could possibly make flammable houses and/or trees I thought I replied to this thread but oh well shrug.. thought of an alternate ending to Baldur's Gate that would've been cool thanks to this thread. Imagine being able to enter Baldur's Gate, lob a molotov coaktail* at the Thieves Guild, enter the Labyrinth but be chased down by every guard in Baldur's Gate through it (in and out) and take out Sarevok. It could be an excellent ending for an evil character, as you have to escape out of Baldur's Gate doing this, and escaping the city gets you to Jon Irenicus (ambushed in the wilds and captured). Just something to think about. I think that a risk of throwing around Fireballs wherever you go could be an interesting feature, with an On/Off switch in difficulty options (Flammable objects "Yes/No"?). If I am inside a wooden house and the Bandits come and attack, or the villagers are on a lynch mob with torches to destroy the main character (because they think he/she is an abomination or whatever). Regardless, they burn down the house my party is in and rising from the ashes of it is my character, though I might loose 1 or 2 characters if I can't escape from it. Likewise I could use the same tactic against my enemies hiding inside houses. The consequences would of course be that people wouldn't like you as much if you burn down their villages and huts. It'd be a more rewarding experience for an evil character if you can play a chaotic destructive force character. Workload: - Making everything flammable isn't difficult (I think), using a fire animation that spreads depending on triggers and such and where it hits (I mean, Fire and Wood is both going to be "material" in the game, so this is a question of organizing the models and such to act accordingly, which is a bit of a workload). There'd be some workload to making the "destroyed" model too I think. - The real workload I believe is to make story elements and consequences, making NPC's react in a way and such. Druids in a Forest, Villagers, Guards, Factions etc. etc. *coaktail because the other one is, you know, filtered.

In Might & Magic 1 you have to go to an Inn to save. I really like this concept. If camping is limited (in essence, an updated Rest mechanic) this could be cool as well. There are some problems with this though, and that is if you camp outside the dungeon, you go through the entire thing, get to the boss and then die. Now you have to play through everything. Of course you could break the immersion yourself and finish everything in the dungeon except the boss, leave for a town and save, then return to the cave. But then the question is... has anything respawned? And if it has respawned, wouldn't this be an excellent method to use for "grinding" and "abusing"? Regardless, I think that you should be able to save anywhere and however you want, Hardcore mode fulfills the hardcore saving does it not? The real question I am wondering about is, will I be able to play Hardcore save mode on all difficulties? "Save scumming" (the definition of it is externally messing with the actual .file definition in your folder e.g., "making a backup" no?) has never really been an issue to me, I press Q like mad when I play Baldur's Gate. Before enemy, after enemy, before rest, after rest. I see it as a sense of accomplishment and I'm a fast player (heavy micro-management, I draw conclusions quick and beat enemies to a pulp within 3 draws, I can be a mean chess player too ). The Rest mechanic is more of an issue, which will be... fixed in P:E? I don't think it will be entirely "fixed" but with new solutions comes new problems, I'm such an optimist realistically speaking, there's probably going to be things in P:E that people are going to whine about regardless, you can't please everyone, and everyone certainly doesn't know how to please themselves (mindset). Also, if I get woken up by enemies I take them down, no reloading here just because I had a bad night. The real problem is that I can take down the enemies fairly easy due to party strength and player skill, then I just rest right after that battle, if there is another battle waking my party up I take those enemies down until I get a satisfactory rest and re-memorized all my spells and such. It was way too easy to rest and take down enemies, there was no real threat. The highest difficulty I've played on Baldur's Gate is "Core Rules" though so I have no idea how difficult the enemies get on the highest highest settings *shrug*

Threads, categorized by "Kickstarter", "Classes", "Alignment", "Player" etc. etc. it is more of a collection from A-X what has been discussed. Fairly up to date. ObsidianForumsAL.pdf ObsidianForumsMX.pdf

False statement(?): A trigger is kind of, putting a "thought" (externally) into the AI "Go that way and use animation 43 to attack". Question: Is it possible for you to create an environment in the game during development where you can play 1on1 against each other (Enemy versus main party/classes)? Is it possible to create/record a "Live" AI based on how you actually play? This is not any flirting about multiplayer or LAN, I'm curious as to how an AI is crafted and if there are more than one way to do it.

I think you are reading way too much into the grapple thing, I started this topic because I was hoping there was some more abilities (I couldn't think of any tbh) that could be "nerfed" in terms of animations and stuff that really takes Obsidians time, so we can get more game and less effort. On the AI thoughts: Not only related to Grapple but generally, if I send my hulking Barbarian and my Fighter whilst shooting arrows and Magic Missiles after 1 enemy, is he just going to stand there taking that pounding or could he react as the Fighter and Barbarian enters the suggested AI AoE ring (invisible to the eye, only in code) and hightail it the other way?

I just want to dive into this because party building is really important (way more important than designing a "Single Player" style in my opinion). I want my party to function as a party, teamwork is super important. Doing some calculations on how many combinations could be possible and yeah... xD I'm not a full fledged genius mathematician so I can't say that the link below shows the correct credible information, did make a list of all Classes Combined with each other (N = 11, R = 2) in Excel and came up to the same number that the Calculator did (55) so I believe it. http://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/discretemathematics/combinations.php N = Number of Classes (11) R = Number of Party Members (6) 426 possible 6 man party builds (based on Classes only). I would at least like to see N = 11 and R = 2 (each class combined with 1 other class; 11 classes 2 party members), the number of combinations/builds are way fewer and more realistic to design, namely 55 <- that calculation isn't taking into consideration the fact that I can have 3 party members and use the Barbarian, Fighter and Cipher mix and matched a la: Barbarian+Fighter Barbarian+Cipher Cipher+Fighter For laughs (not serious): N = Number of Combinations/Party Builds (426) R = Armor Tiers (3) N+R = 12'794'200

^That is exactly what I'm going for. Monk (or Unarmed) specific ability, so unless you go with a 3+ Monk party the battle wouldn't be static. The Grappling/Stun Lock would definitely be a double-edged sword. Another thought, to negate some abusing, is that when your Monk is in a Stun Lock with someone else, and you send in your Rogue or Fighter (or whatever, really) to deal damage to the enemy there's a chance you'll hit the Monk instead. This way it'll be a risk to send in a character to backstab the enemy. Example: Monk Stun Locks the Bandit, they struggle, my Wizard throws a Magic Missile aimed at the enemy, but as the Monk and Bandit wrestles, the Missiles miss the Bandit and hits my Monk instead. Same thing with my Barbarian, I send him in to deal some massive Hulk damage but I miss and now I've beheaded Forton. It'll make the ability much more a "Should I use this?" or not. I also think that you shouldn't be able to just leave the "Stun Lock" at a whim, you'd have to have proper Strength (or something). If the enemy is stronger, especially if the enemy is stronger, I shouldn't be able to just dance out of it as if it is nothing. If I engage a Stun Lock it should be a risk I am willing to take.

So I was just thinking about this, what abilities are there that can serve the same purpose without having an animation for it? In Update 15 Tim Cain says that "grapple" won't be in the game because it is unnecessary resources. Is there a middle-ground here? I wouldn't, personally, mind if there is a grapple ability (for the Monk) in the game. Even if it is without animation. I draw most of my thoughts from League of Legends regarding this, where you press a button when you're close enough to an enemy and there's a "clanky" sound and then "Stun" (if you are within range of your opponent). Could grapple be an ability without animation? Sample Example 1: I move my monk up close to the target enemy, use the "Grapple" ability and both my enemy and my monk are now "Stunned" or "Static". My own imagination fills in the blanks where the animation is lacking. Perhaps there could be a SoT (Stamina over Time) loss to both my Monk and the opponent (Dependent on Strength). The one with the highest Strength throws saving throws to be able to leave the grapple, for instance, the opponent has a higher Strength and thus can leave the grapple whenever he/she feels like it. The AI could react to distance, and amount of characters in an invisible AoE ring around it. So if I send a character to aid my Monk in this power struggle the AI could react and leave it, but if I stay away the AI continues to power struggle, because he/she is stronger than my Monk. [EDIT]: Sample Example 2: My Wizard being able to throw an AoE Dome Spell, I could trap 3-4 enemies in this Dome with my Fighter, so that the enemies don't go away and focus something else, or perhaps trap them together with an angry Barbarian. Or better yet, trap them whilst I take out something else. This wouldn't need to be animated either but simple cause any enemy hit by this spell to not be able to leave the affected AoE area. Perhaps a glimmer of light around the selected area.[/EDIT] Are there any other abilities that could be difficult or time consuming to animate that could follow a similar type of simplicity? Ultima 1 (which I recently finished) is a very very simplified example (with hardly any abilities at all, I didn't buy any spells or try them I just wanted to finish the game as fast as possible so I could have it under my belt, i.e. I followed a walkthrough about 1/2 of the game). Are there any tl;dr folk left in the forums by the way? TL;DR: AI thoughts, but really wondering if some animations for some abilities could be simplified. E.g., do you want to see an ability in P:E but you think it would be too resource heavy? Perhaps it could be simplified? How vivid does spell shields need to be?

Lol, my friend in America told me that game companies aren't allowed to make an actual lockpicking mini-game (He was a locksmith and could pick many locks) because it is easy to pick a lock and/or teach how to pick a lock through a game. Instead they create something psuedo-real for ease of use. I laughed in his conspiratorial face, silently. On to the matter. A mini-game can be fun, but it can also be tedious. We have the Rogue, and dedicating a mini-game to only Rogue seems unfair to the other classes but it would give you a reason to have a Rogue, which is also a drawback in itself (in essence, the question of "What if I don't play a Rogue?"). With that said, no to mini-games, but perhaps there is a different way to do it? In Lands of Lore you get an item, lockpicks, which never breaks (I'm playing on novice by the way). You click your inventory and click the chest a multitude of times til the chest opens. I could see that in P:E, except having the lockpicks break (depending on difficulty). And/Or have it as an On/Off button at character creation. I kind of want to tailor my difficulty to my playstyle (personally).

Hi, it would be awesome with environmental hazards and I'm simply voting for imaginations sake, I don't expect it to be a part of the game even if this poll becomes popular. Good poll +1. I voted as such: "Should there be environmental hazards?" I look at this question like that^ because it to me feels as a pressing question "Should there be" as if I am demanding "Yes!" when I vote. I choose "Maybe in special areas" which could be a part of the normal game. A Swamp that has a poisonous mist that I can't get through without an experimental (for it's era) gas mask item/helmet. I could possibly go through it without the item in question, but I would be taking damage over time (DoT) as long as I stay in the area. "Should there be hazardous weather?" Maybe once or twice. "If you voted yes..." It is meant to be endured and overcome, from a roleplaying perspective. Items could make my journey simpler through it. If I don't have a cape when traveling through the stormy desert I'll get a penalty to "sight", whilst I get less of a penalty with a cape. A fur cape when I travel through the mountains will keep my party warmer but I'd still take a slight penalty to "movement speed". If anything like this is ever implemented (Hazardous weather) make sure that an item or an equipment or magical spell doesn't entirely remove all of the effects of the weather, but simply mitigates some of it's effects. Old school classic adventure games that only let's you travel through certain areas if you have certain items, and it's all fun and games and when you get the item and can tread further into the game. Most of the games just "remove" the effects completely when you have that equipment/item. Walking with Mud Boots in the Swamp should allow me to walk through it, but it shouldn't necessarily make me be able to sprint across it. I should still be getting a movement speed penalty, the Swamp Serpents will still move faster than me and it'd be difficult to run away. Adding tactical aspects to the areas would be awesome

Recently tried some old old old school games (Finished Ultima 1, with a walkthrough to a start, just to understand basics. Am at the White Tower in Lands of Lore and it's a b**ch. 2nd town in M&M1). New found love for these classics, one of the reasons being I hardly know anything and have to cover a lot by Pen & Paper side by side. Drawing all the maps, writing and figuring out spells by myself and so on. Writing down Quests and Hints etc. I love it! Though, I encounter some instances where I find it difficult to play. Ultima 2, I'm on my 4th character because it's quite different from 1st one and I haven't devoted myself to it either. Darklands seem amazing but I'm on the first page of the manual (have barely read anything). I would be fine with some basic information, "tooltips" if you will. But I would also want to flesh out the Spell descriptions (specifically) myself. I'd want to know the effects when I cast a spell, and not know before (forcing me to learn by "trial and error"). I'd also want to have it as an option, turn on/off.

Hi Steve looking forward to challenge your AI. I too am a whiskey enthusiast, though not heavily or heaving but sophisticated. Unless it's a bottle of R&R. Cheers (and a suggestion if you like the darker, steamy, musty, smokey stuff): This one will put some hair on your chest.

Why does an X gain an ability when a Y does not? We're using a class-based system in part because every IE game also used class-based systems. One of the things that class-based systems do to differentiate classes is give them exclusive capabilities. It just so happens that prior to 3E (including most 2nd Ed. thief kits), thieves were generally terrible in combat. Source: playing and DMing literally dozens of thieves in 1st and 2nd Ed. AD&D. The one thing in their favor once combat started (or before combat started) was backstab. It was unreliable, but it's been kept in one form or another over the years. It seems like an obvious thing for them to retain. We're not going to make rogues pure utility characters and we've stated this from the start. For us, the question is not, "Should rogues be able to hold their own in combat?" For us, the question is, "What are the different ways in which rogues should be able to hold their own in combat?" There are many potential answers to that question, but if ideas get shot down because fighters have to consistently smash everyone else to pieces in melee without exception, it's going to be difficult to answer. This right here makes me wonder if the Fighter could be weaker... if the Role of the Fighter is to not be a meat grinder perhaps the Role of the Rogue becomes more interesting? Still, I don't see why everyone should not have backstab (why should it be excluded?). Likewise I don't see the reason to not include a Sneak Attack ability for the Rogue. If everyone has backstab in your party, then everyone you are facing should have it as well (in my opinion this is interesting, and fights will be a lot of positioning, could spawn some weird AI though = Enemies that position themselves behind you and dies when they would've dealt more damage head on). Sneak Attack, however, could work in 360 angles (at the cost of Stamina) for the Rogue. It would be more likely to miss if used head on face-to-face, but you could still do it. It could be seen as the Rogue slipping his dagger between the arms of the enemy and adeptly strike the abdomen or a weak spot. Armpit? etc. etc. Now I don't suggest you should wrestle with a sword in hand but for example's sake, Sword against Dagger, the Sword will be a clumsy weapon and clumsy to use, it'd be better to just drop it and fight unarmed, but a dagger up close and personal (close enough for a wrestle) you can still use flexibly without any restriction. If you are in a fist-fight (real life), quickly move as close as possible (in a hugging position, you want body to touch body almost) because this makes your opponent loose range. It's hard to hit someone who is hugging you for several reasons, but if the intent is to do damage you suddenly don't have the same range to use your sword, or your fist. Imagine someone right now, up close and personal with their face right next to yours in front of you, or go stand in front of a wall. How hard can you hit the wall if you stand right in front of it, comparing to taking 1 step back away from it? Sneak Hug. There we go. The Role of the Rogue.

I voted yes, I would tolerate it. I'd prefer if it isn't "toy head" on human body. But a bipedal relative, more sophisticated version of the animal. Kind of Humans versus the primitive equivalent, Monkeys. Elephans would also be more sophisticated but keep some of its primitive Elephant anatomy. Do I think it's arrogant that we place ourselves into the world? Yes and no. It makes sense on many levels, but it could be done differently, must humanity be the governing force in every game?

^Yes but not at all or even close to a Job system (Axe = Barbarian, even if I chose Fighter, not like that). The Job System and the Class System are two-different ones (One of them you can switch around as you see fit, the other one will be part of your character throughout the entire game). It is similar, but the weapon wouldn't define your class (mechanically) like it does in FFXIV. It would merely be a tool. A Fighter won't become a Wizard just because he picks up the Grimoire, he'll still be a Fighter (In FFXIV he would become a Wizard).

See attachment. I don't think it's entirely complete. Worked on it earlier today, didn't think I'd use it but then you go and ask if I can come up with 9 abilities when I've already come up with some 33~ abilities.rtf

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60995-pack-a-mule/ And a poll http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61414-pack-animals-or-beasts-of-burden/

Part 2: M-X Starts with MAGIC ObsidianForumsMX.pdf

Made an even better list, categorized everything. Seriously think this should help anyone. This is only Part 1: A-L Starts with ALIGNMENT ObsidianForumsAL.pdf

Actually, it'd be less work than that if you grouped weapons together that were used in the same way. For instance, a handaxe and a machete are two different weapons that are functionally used in exactly the same way. Both are single-handed, chopping-only types of weapons. Therefore the abilities and animations associated with their use wouldn't have to be different. Further, single-handed weapons that had both chopping and thrusting capability could share -some- animations with those as well, narrowing the number of animations that need to be created. Basically, I don't think we need to oversimplify a good idea. I am oversimplifying it because 231+ Weapon Abilities. On top of that you're going to want to put in Spell Abilities. I counted what feels to me to be the High-, Mid- and Low-Magic Class: High-Magic: Priest, Druid, Wizard, Cipher Mid-Magic: Chanter, Monk, Paladin Low-Magic: Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian, Ranger If using my method you would have about 80~ Weapon Abilities (Not Weapon+Class Abilities, but Weapon only, that are the same for each Class but a Fighter would be best with Sword & Board, and could even have Class Abilities that are directly tied to the Sword & Board) and you'd have about 160 Spell Abilities to distribute between the classes. I did a quick brainstorming and I got it to around 25~ Spells Each for the High-Magic (Obviously it needs to be more), 10~ each for Mid-Magic and about 5~ each for the Low-Magic (in total). Obviously all 3 of these needs to have more, in my opinion. Most importantly the High-Magic ones, (25~ Spells spent across 12 Levels... 2 spells per level, maybe not so fun :/). I'd like to have about 40~ spells each for High-Magic (total of 160), 20~ each for Mid-Magic (60) and maybe 10~ each for the Low-Magic (40). That's 260 Magic Abilities. With the idea I am challenging, which I like but I'm looking at resources, you might need 500~600 Abilities with description, in total. Rogue-Axe might have the same animation, but the effects of the Rogue-Axe versus the Fighter-Axe are different. I haven't even started going into Class Abilities yet, see where I'm going? That's why you need to oversimplify, just as much as you need to exaggerate it, this way you'll see where the middle ground is better. Let's go back to those 500~600 abilities (in total). In my idea only about 80~ would be Weapon Abilities, leaving about 420~520 Abilities that could be distributed to Spells and Classes. This is if the game would be developed with the mindset that they are going to have 500-600 abilities spread across Weapon/Class/Spell. In the idea I am challenging we are looking at 230 Weapon Abilities versus 270-370 Spell & Class Abilities. EDIT: And a good idea should be deconstructed, just to be constructed so we can deconstruct it again. A good idea needs to be inspected and analyzed "Does it really work?". Because you don't want the developers to be all like "That is one fine idea let's do it!" and mid-way through development they'll be like "Eeeeh this wasn't a good idea at all". So I think it is good to oversimplify, as well as exaggerate into obscurity, analyze, find problems and find solutions to these problems. Challenge the idea, so that the person that came up with it can think of new ways to present it and/or solve problems that others see that he/she does not.

^Depends on how mature the Wizard is. Is he an Anakin or an Obi-Wan? 2 Evil Sith Wizards battle for power constantly. About sharing spells, could you teach a trainer who then trains others so that you will meet enemies and friends alike using the spell? It could replace the generic other spell that the enemy always casts in battle (over time you'd notice more and more use it, if it's a good spell ofc). This would be a great feature for two reasons, A, Being able customize your game in a way mid-game, altering the world from within the game (This makes your character feel important imo) B, Personalizing your game (Hey, you named that spell, and made the spell combining Generic Spell Animation A and Generic Spell Animation B, sure, Obsidian gave you the tools but you "built" it, or at least that's how it could feel like. It could make the game up-close and personal on a personal level). ... Hmm... this brings to thought off topic things (Why is always Good versus Evil, or Evil versus Good? Where is the Evil versus Evil and Good versus Good? Just feels as if it is rare in games altogether)

Exactly. What I am envisioning isn't a TES system: Character & Class Level Up = Quest Experience"It is at the end of the journey we realize it was a journey" in that way I feel about lots of things. I can only come to full realization when my Quest is done, and I learn the experience of it (Quest Based-System). It makes no sense that Quests would have anything to do with my skill with a sword, unless a specific Quest. My sneaking, speech skill and trade skill could all be tied to Questing however. Weapon Level Up = Kill enemies. How Baldur's Gate does it (Take down 1 Enemy, get 15 Experience for the Equipped weapon). You'd have 1'000'000 Experience just to Level it 1 Level. When I am only the one left standing on the battlefield, that is when I learn. When I have taken down my opponent, that is when I learn. You learn in the midst of combat as well, but for simplicity's sake and philosophically you learn when you are alive and your opponent is dead. If the other way around you learned/experienced only to embrace defeat or death. Fighter -> Monster dies = Experience Monster -> Fighter dies = Death, no Experience Makes sense? I really like the idea and thought about how a Rogue with Axes would have its own style, just a thought: * 11 Classes and some 22~ weapons? That's about... 231+ different styles/animations/abilities at least For simplicity's sake it would be easier to tie about 3-4 abilities to each Weapon for everyone, that would narrow down Weapon Abilities to some 33-44+ (this is not taking Spells or Schools into Account). Class specific abilities could be 3-4 for each class as well, now up to 33-44+ abilities. Roughly 70-80 Abilities in total, which could leave us with ~140 spells instead of having "[Class] Axe" skills.

I can see it and I like it. Though like other people have said it's not super important but if resources allow. Thoughts: * You are knocked unconscious 3 times loosing all your Stamina (throughout the game, not in just one fight but throughout the entire experience). This "unlocks" Mortality mode, and now you could loose all Health as well and die. * Likewise like the one above but harsher, you are knocked unconscious 3 times loosing all your Stamina, you die. This could be seen as "Continues", as you have limited resources as to how many times you can get knocked unconscious.