TRoar

I agree with the both of you about keeping the 360 degree view around party members. It does sound like it would be too tricky to manage a 'realistic' field of vision in a game like this.

That's the kind of pen and paper knowledge that I don't have. Awesome ideas, Lephys!

Perhaps resolve could be used as a kind of willpower/concentration spell shaping/controlling mechanic.

Good question JFSOCC. I think they could, if not script, then at least make it so that there is an object blocking the view of the top of a building. I like where that's going, because then it's the party that's exploring (i.e. the game is more from the parties perspective than the players). Indira, I had someone on rpgcodex refer me to company of heroes 2, also. I really like what I saw of it. One of the nicest touches was smoke obscuring vision. Really cool I thought. I know this isn't really an exciting subject, but does anyone else agree that the fog of war needs some work? That it could improve the game? Should mechanics come into it? Or that it's not really relevant for some reason?

I would still prefer there to be friendly fire in the int bonus area, but maybe half damage instead of full damage.

Nice, I totally hadn't considered that, and it makes very good sense.

In the friendly fire thread I mentioned that the infinity engine fog of war wasn't the best, and could do with an upgrade. I posted some suggestions about how I thought the fog of war might be improved on the rpgcodex forums and thought I'd share them here for people to discuss and for the devs to consider. Something I've never seen done with fog of war in iso games is gradation of fog of war. It could be too dark to see into in the distance, murky at mid to far distance where you might vaguely see something move but more than likely not, mid distance where movement is more noticeable and objects start to take shape and size, near distance where the player can tell if a creature is humanoid or other and have a better idea of it's size (and at this distance the creature could be targeted with a ranged weapon if desired with a negative modifier to hit it...), before being in direct and clear view in the immediate vicinity of the PC. Also, if the engine is 3D, being in an elevated position could increase the diameter of the players field of view to get the lay of the land, spy enemies, etc... Night time could reduce the diameter. If your PC carries a torch at night, creatures could be scripted to hover at the edge of the field of light... This kind of 'dynamic' fog of war I think would be nice. I also think it would be nice if the view distance were greater and the interaction distance with npcs (of the highwaymen/thugs/enemy party/Tarnor's party [bG2 sewers reference] type) was less than the view radius so you don't suddenly find yourself having a conversation with Tarnor a group of psychopaths that will butcher you. Thoughts?

To me the real problem here isn't friendly fire or size of the aoe, although I really like Lephys' suggestion of being able to control the aoe radius/diameter. Magical magic! To me the problem is view distance. The IE games view distance/fog of war was one of the few things that often peeved me. It was too small. I really got annoyed whenever I stumbled upon an enemy party in tight spaces and couldn't use range effectively for aoe spells (i.e., cast spells behind enemy party). If the view distance and spell range were both increased, then it would help accommodate larger diameter aoe's. Also, I think the fog of war system generally needs an upgrade over the IE one.

It's looking seriously great! At this point my only graphical polish concern are animations. We haven't seen much of the animations, so I may be concerned about nothing, but please maintain the high standards. I say this, not because I'm a graphics type, but because of the lack of consistency between animations in the IE games. BG2 reused animations and models from BG while introducing new and much improved ones, and it really stood out. You guys, I hope, have the opportunity now to follow the 'do it right, do it once' way of thinking. I think this game is going to age very well! Well done, Obsidian. a great idea. A sort of mini-inventory. Derived stats like defenses, concentrations, damage output and anything else to help deliver the information quickly without having to switch over multiple screens would be ideal. that way you can make informed decisions quickly without having to hunt for the information you need. BG:EE and BG2:EE incorporated that kind of info into the inventory screen. Probably would be nicer if it was integrated into the record screen to save doubling up the info, but an idea nevertheless... Maybe it would be less busy if it was shown in the inventory? Food for thought...

Thanks, Indira. I picked up on that too. Brainstorming, discussing can lead to good innovations and a slicker gaming experience without compromising the depth of the game play. Personally, I'm all for it. The IE was a great engine, and I even wouldn't mind playing new games in it using the 2nd edition rules, but we all know that there was a lot of room for improving it. Onwards and upwards. I like that idea.

Owe you one, Wombat.

The problem I found generally with status effects was their immediacy. In BG running across a couple basilisks unprepared was as good as game over for a low level party, because the effect was immediate if the saving throw was failed. If petrification, for example, initially slowed the character upon a failed save for 30 seconds before fully petrifying them, the player would at least have a window of opportunity to try counter it. I never found level drain that bad in comparison after the first few times I encountered it, because while it affected you immediately upon being hit, you still had time to dispatch the enemy before dying from level drain or casting a restoration spell. I think giving the player time to counter status effects would reduce the need for reloading and pre-buffing, and the game flow would be interrupted less often. I would answer to a slightly greater degree the latter. I like a good story, and when I first started playing BG/BG2 I had never heard of AD&D. The system was unfamiliar, and getting to the next juicy bit of story was often frustrating.

Agreed. I also think the most valuable feedback will come once we've all played the game for a few months...

any permanent debuff makes me reload my game after the fight. that said I am usually pretty good at avoiding level drain. I had my cleric remember a few restoration spells, and led the attack against vampires with the amulet that protects against negative energy as well as the upgraded mace of disruption. Level drain wasn't too bad if I was prepared for it.

That's a great approach. I have faith in you guys. I think you'll do a great job, and I understand that every creation has an experimental aspect, as evidenced by the differences in the IE games. What I've seen so far of PoE is balance through the major aspects of the game, which is what encourages my faith - seems to me like you're bringing together the best parts of the IE games. Besides that, I'm sure this will just be the first installment, an important stepping stone, no doubt, but there will be time for evolution/refinement. Keep up the great job, Josh.

Damn, Wombat, that's a great post, and I largely agree with it, but for some reason I had alarm bells go off. Does this type of game (overall) fit into a niche, or is it a game for a [slightly/moderately/largely] broader market? I honestly have no idea. Games like this offer so much, in my mind... I hope it appeals to a broader market and is a big success.

I personally don't think this is much of an argument. In BG, BG2 and IWD2, having replayed all three recently, I can say that if I replay the same fight, the outcome for my party is VERY OFTEN different. Sometimes my party doesn't get a scratch (even in a hard fight), sometimes it gets slaughtered, and there's every possibility in between. There are some fights which aren't challenging, and there are, rightly so, epic struggles which are difficult every time. And that, IMO, is exactly how it should be. Like many in this thread, I also don't have as much time for gaming as I once did, but I think the only sensible approach to creating PoE, as a spiritual successor, is to improve upon the games that it is succeeding. IMO, BG, BG2 and IWD2 were all unbalanced in some aspect of the game. Striking a finer balance between story/dialogue and combat (for me, a little more time spent on story and dialogue than engaged in combat...), and getting a nice spread of content density throughout the game world. I think it's all about how everything is delivered to the player. Variety in content delivered at varying paces I think would make the game better. To neuter this game in any way will be to affect its ability to spread seeds of inspiration into the minds of a new generation of RPG fans. I say, onwards and upwards.

The image I got in my head based on Mr. Feargus' idea of Skyrim's open world crossed with PoE was one GIANT map to explore instead of the smaller, mostly unconnected, maps of BG1, BG2 et al. Imagine cities actually city sized on one continuous map instead of the disconnected sections of Athkatla. Imagine exiting the city gates to a sprawling wilderness that stretched for in-game miles, with no artificial path-ing like the s path in the Druid's Grove of BG2. My imagination really runs away with that idea. Need to travel miles quickly? Cast haste on your party! lol As for where my vote would go for a new setting/IP... Post-apoc fantasy world, Dark Sun setting if possible. I hope Obsidian dangle several possibilities in front of us and then do a preference style vote prior to doing the next kickstarter. The vote could be for setting type, and then they could go to town on it before starting the kickstarter.

That would make for a great balance, and something that I'd be more than happy to back.

Hey Josh, I just finished reading the big pcworld.com interview, and was pleasantly surprised by your answer to the last question. You were saying that one of your bigger concerns was the size expectations of fans for PoE, and said that BG2 is a HUGE game. I agree with you, BG2 is huge. I guess there are a number of reasons why BG2 is used as a benchmark for these kinds of games, size being one, and that it's equally important for fans, such as myself, to not forget that BG2 used the original BG as a foundation (a big one at that). In regards to my previous post, where I said that I was hoping PoE would be roughly the same size as BG2 and that I thought if it was that big then there was no real need for more content, I think I was setting my expectations a bit high. If PoE is around 75% the size of BG2 (still a really big game!) then I personally think that there's still no real need for more content, and that polishing should take priority. Again, I'd still make a pledge regardless of what additional stretch goals were added, because of missing the kickstarter.

For me the question is (and an answer would be greatly appreciated), how does the planned content of PoE compare to BG2:SoA in terms of size and quality? Are there roughly the same amount of areas? Similar amount of quests? Similar amount of npcs? Similar depth, complexity and quality for each of those? If PoE is already on target to being that big, then personally I don't see a real need for more content. In that case, I think polishing the game should take priority. I'm hoping for PoE to be similar to BG2, even if it means delaying the release. If there's time for the team to add more polished content, then I'm all for it. A couple more npcs are always welcome, and I really like Azmodan's suggestion, "Additional, self-contained, wilderness areas that have no bearing on the main story, but flesh out some aspect of the world history," perhaps via some minor-medium sized quests. Having said all that, I voted yes as I missed backing this project.