Shevek

Thats interesting. Again, I found Cloakwood to be one of the most difficult areas of BG1 and that was outdoors. Hell, the Bandit camp was harder than most dungeons in BG1. Only tough dungeon in BG1 was, what, Durlag's Keep? Hell, you can get jumped by 10 ogres in random encounters anywhere when travelling in late game BG1. 1. We have no idea where the beta content is in relation to the "main path." If anything, we have told we have been given a slice of the game with very few spoilers. More than likely, this is off the main path. 2. Um, BG1 had plenty of tough encounters right on the main path. The drunk in Beregost. The assassin outside the friendly arm inn and outside the Nashkell inn (both towns!) could prove difficult. ALL of Cloakwood. The bandit camp. None of these are dungeons or off the main path and they can be challenging. Did you play BG1?

Hell, running around through freaking Cloakwood can lead to death allover in BG1. I think you guys are forgetting that this demo takes place well into the game.

A) We may have consider what the mid levels are, but after 4 is considered mid level to me. Winter Wolves in sufficient number can be a threat. B) I don't care where they are. That has no bearing. C) They don't. They do. Make up your mind. Again, where they are is of little difference. D) Please clarify what exactly your point is.

Um, the IE games had plenty of non-named mobs that posed legitimate threats at mid levels (winter wolves, ogres, umberhulks, etc) - especially if you didn't pre-buff, werent very well geared or didn't rely on the almighty stinking cloud. Every encounter at the mid levels wasn't just a casual romp through gibberlings or gnolls or whatever. Ultimately, the idea that you should be able to run around slaying non named mobs with impunity is silly - on any difficulty. Also, I would stress that the IE titles might have been a bit too easy - which is evidenced by the variety of dificulty mods which exist primarily to allow enemies to prebuff and use the same cheap tactics players use. In any case, while I concur that difficulty could be toned a bit on easy, I feel some folks are overselling their points.

I meant another skill under Mechanics. I've now changed it to traps. See my two posts again. Oh, I get you.. Ya could be troublesome for mechanics. Not so much the other skills though. The devs might able to work with it.

I am not advocating a GURPs clone or something with its expansive skill list. I am saying like 10 or 12 skills. 5 skills is a waste. For reference: http://gurps.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Skills

Why would stealth dialogue checks be assigned to mechanics? Thats not what i am suggesting at all.

If you approach the umbrella skill or affinity as a derived stat or a "rating" , then its not confusing at all. Example: If you increase your Endurance skill, your athletics rating goes up. Other ways to increase Athletics include taking this dual wield talent. As you get a higher athletics rating you pass more athletic checks. I dunno, makes sense to me...

Ok, how about this. What if the skill set can be expanded WITHOUT needing to add any more skill checks. What if there could be MORE skill choices within the framework of the 5 skills that exist. Ok, check this out... So, Athletics, Stealth, Mechanics, Lore and Survival all become SKILL AFFINITIES as opposed to skills. Affinity could be gained by races or backgrounds but they would give no mechanical benefit (other than convo/scripted interactions). Each affinity would have 2 (or more if they wanted to) related skills. Here is a quick and dirty mock up of how it could work. Investing 1 skill point in "Run Speed" would make you run faster but also increase your athletics affinity by 1. One could also raise Athletics affinity by taking "Athletic" talents as well. This way, people can get max athletics for convo/scripted checks without feeling that they need to max a skill or set of skills. This would encourage folks to spread the points around a bit as well. The best thing? No new skill checks needed. Just an idea...

Currently, skills are tied to talents. I would strongly recommend going back to the old skill system. I should not be selecting combat talents with the notion of making sure that it gives me skill bonuses so I can make skill checks. This is truly degenerative game design as it is built in metagaming that gets players to create characters counter a character concept they may desire. Still, the old system was still lacking. Largely because there were not enough skills. How can skill choice mean anything when there are 5 skills and 6 characters in the party? The math is easy. Part of this can be addressed by splitting up Mechanics. This skills involves.. spotting traps, disarming traps, placing traps, picking locks and disabling machines. Wow. In most RPGs that would be an entire skill set. Picking Locks can be Mechanics: Lockpicking. Disarming/Placing Traps can be a skill called Mechanics: Traps. In order to avoid this being a must max skill, the traps skill could require a lower investment to disarm traps (disabling a very hard trap should require only half skill), slightly higher investment to place traps and an even higher investment to retreive disarmed traps. This would allow the party to disarm traps with only moderate investment. Those are attractive skills on their own. You can then use either skill to meet Mechanics checks in scripted interactions. Ok, so now we are up one skill. Other skills are much harder to split apart. Athletics, Stealth, Lore and Survival seem fine. If anything, Lore may need a bit of a buff (maybe minor defensive bonuses or something similar that increases with skill for a character who invests in Lore vs enemies with a full beastiary entry unlocked? sorta, like they "know their enemy"). 6 skills... 6 skills is not enough. How about.. Haggling? This skill could function as a skill which takes the net amount the PARTY invests in the skill to adjust buy/skill prices. Any convo or scripted interactions utilizing the skill could use the value of an INDIVIDUAL party member. This way, all the party benefits from all investment in the haggle skill. Well, thats 7 skills. Not bad, but there needs to be more. So, how about Scouting? This could allow you to spot traps, hidden enemies and maybe also increase your view distance or somethin. Maybe make just spotting traps only require a low investment so a trapper can be effective while investing half in Traps and half in this. Thats 8 skills. MUCH better. But, even more would be nice. The devs need to take a nice, long look at the skilll system and find ways to really make a skill system worth having. Start by disconnecting skills and talents and then increase the number of skills. 5 skills just isnt gonna cut it. I would recommend getting the number of skills up to 12 or so (double max party size).

This system pigeonholes you into picking certain talents to ensure you make skill checks with certain characters. That is not good design. The combat talents should be balanced on their own and people should select them to design their character so they can fight as they wish. I should not be thinking, "man, I really want my rogue to pick up Y talent but I have to take that crappy X talent to get my guy to sneak around instead." Its so bad. I am amazed Sawyer greenlit this. They had the right idea when they stated that out of combat and combat progression would be separate. They need to return to those design principles.

Improve interfacing with the current combat speed, you mean? Indicators on portaits could let us know if characters are in cooldown, acting, out of cooldown, etc. A portrait bar could list character order in the top edge of the screen (similar to tb games). Action indicators above characters could be of variable lengths to better telegraph the length of cooldowns. Many many things could be done on the feedback side. Similarly, a character getting critted or hit by an AoO could give out various barks or be animated differenly to be better help the player see what is happening in the heat of the moment. The list goes on and on. There are many possible solutions.

UI means anything and everything from indicators which explain current actions to lists or the like which specifiy action order. It encompasses combat feedback, how actions are executed or queued and all other manner of ways in which a USER INTERFACES with existing game systems. Do you really need me to define UI?

Forcing me to consider being a gun user to be able to pick locks is ludicrous. They need completely separate talent and skill selection. Edit: One thing that may work better (but still suck) is the reverse: skill requirements for talents. So, if you want a dual wield talent, you need x skill in athletics. If you want a gun talent, you may need some skill in mechanics. This isn't as limiting (so long as requirements are kept low) and makes much more sense. I would add that there should still be way way more skills. This would still suck however - it would totally go against their idea of skills and combat stuff being in different pools.

It makes speed manageable. It communicates events over time more effectively. It helps the player learn when to pause to execute actions more effectively and not haphazardly pause more often than they should. It helps then gauge ai actions and when to execute movement or action.

Many games hit A and B. C is your largest concern. Isn't C an issue being dealt with?. Hasn't the lack of automation and the large degree of active use been communicated to and by devs? Rather than discus rounds, what about waiting to see what is done about the overabundance of active skill use and, instead, focus on the UI which all stakeholders agree is an issue?

I guess I disagree that combat cannot be fixed via UI. Plenty of RTwP games exist without rounds that do not feel chaotic. I tend to see UI as how they achieve this.

Why are we assuming UI changes cannot effectively address issues with chaotic combat? Also, why are we assuming that rounds are the only viable systems change?

The problem is combat feeling chaotic. We have an understanding with that. Systems and UI are tools to meet an end. Certainly, one or the other can address the problem. Why focus on sweeping systems changes when small technical UI fixes may resolve the issue?

I understand your argument. You are saying that rounds would make combat less chaotic. My question, just because that solution can work, does that mean that it is the best solution? Wouldn't it be best to focus on UI changes rather than sweeping systems changes?

Sensuki, repeat after me, "inspired by the IE games" does not have to mean and should not have to mean "a modern day iE game."

OE just needs to improve feedback to better alert folks of whose acting, whose on cooldown and the like. That could be done via ui rather than systems changes. It could be as easy as small portraits ordered at the top of the screen in order of cooldown time. When off cooldown, portraits can be in the front and flashing.

The devs need balanced discussion. I am happy to inject a bit a logic into your squirrel chasing.

Cheap barbs is all that the posts in this thread merit. There is no clear point being made, so why should anyone bother? 2 things: 1. You assume that anything that is unnecessary is unoptimized. This is false. You do not need lots of things in life but claiming that not having them makes your life optimal is stupid. 2. People have not proven anything "pointless" with regards to anything in this thread. The current system certainly has a "point." Again, having just 1 pool leads to clear loss. If you have 2 pools, one that can be healed in combat and 1 that cannot, then its easy to balance strategic health loss against short term stamina gain. You limit it to one pool and you end up losing that. Having just one pool would also drastically change encounter design since you cannot expect people to be at full stamina at each encounter if you were to get rid of stamina. Your "fixes" would create a host of problems that would make the game worse.

I am not "emotional attached" to the current system; I just feel it makes sense and it works. I can make a bunch of "what ifs" too. They dont matter. Give me a clear reason why this system doesnt work. Frankly, all I hear is a bunch of whining with no explanations other that "its not like BG2, why?" Ok, so what exactly are you trying to say? Do you guys know how to make points that are clear or suggestions that are worth a damn? Let me help you. 1. First, outline a SPECIFIC problem. Explain how the problem is either against a stated design goal or harms gameplay. Do not simply plays devil's advocate, attempt to empathize. Look at why something was done, acknowledge that, but stick to explaining how its broken. 2. Outline a solution and how it addresses the problem while not hampering design goals. 3. Do a cost benefit analysis where you weigh what you gain and against an honest assessment of what you lose with your prosposed solution. This is not remotely what is happening in this thread. Its like kids with ADHD chasing rabid squirrels.