Update #3: Game Basics - Your Party, Your Characters, and Races

[IEfan]

One "feature" that I'm really disappointed with in newer RPG's, like DA:O, is that NPC/companion's level is set mirrored to your primary character when you find them.

You do realize that Baldur's Gate worked this way, right? (It wasn't a perfect mirror, but I recall many characters scrounging about for XP with Imoen so that they could make it to level 2 before going and meeting Khalid & Jahiera, so that they would be higher level when they joined up. Wasn't always easy for a multi-class.)

That's always a sticky wicket, though, especially if the party doesn't share experience. You might adventure with someone for a while and seek to use another companion for a quest, only to find that the second companion is painfully under leveled.

This is a good point.

 

I really, really liked the goofy/interesting heroes from BG1 (that grew up to directions in BG2, didn't matter if you didn't see everyone though). I liked a lot that they had their failures/weaknesses as heroes (and specific bonus abilities), even someone likable like Khalid was frail. Ahahah everyone remembers Qualey and where you got him? That ruled so much ahhaha. I still want to clear BG1 with Candlekeep tutorial group...

 

But you know, they never had anything interesting to say ofc, like anything at all which was disapointing... moreover, I discovered that since the exp levels raised by treshold levels, they NEVER exactly had the same experience as your other NPC's so in order to min-max/to have the most levels by maximum experience you have, you really just had to stick with Imoen till the end. Then imagine getting people like Qualey or even Safana or that dwarf fighter/cleric at the midgame/endgame!

 

I don't know if this is a weakness but usually, when you find more or less the "best" ways to finish and possibly break the game (dual-classes eg figther-mage in both BG, bards too in BG1) and have to meticulously plan your heroes from start to finish, it really really takes away from immersion and possibly makes you start over the game.

 

*My experience with the IWD/BG1-2 whole-team dual-classing or planning that, despite getting interesting skills/RPG elements/unique elements to my custom companions (that i consciously tried NOT to max all the time - i tried to RPG my heroes!), there just simply were Right Choices and Wrong Choices. Some are over-powered due to too-much synergestics from both classes and some are too frail (so you never really dual-classed from thief to fighter-type of classes since you only got the HP bonus from the first 8 levels of the game).

*NWN2 had cool ideas with deitys and subclasses like uh Pale Caster or whatever but I had to quit my NWN2 game because my hero was simply TOO weak and underpowered, despite having RPG'd him a lot (like Avellone did with his Wasteland 2 post). So never played that game again.

*In NWN1 you either meticulously planned hero levels and dual-classing (naturally to the only choices that wouldn't make the heroes MUCH weaker vs enemies) from start to finish with set routes and by picking the same skills on every level or you just wasted your hero. No in-between really.

*You could argue that Fallout 1 & 2 you just put a lot of points to most common skills in the game and forgot the rest (Wasteland - dilemma, plus you had to play the game to find out which were useless and possibly start over) - you put usually on plasma weapons right from the start of the game because they were simply the strongest weapons in game without any question. So you started planning hero from the start AGAIN (since some of the skills like plasma weapons were definitely end-game) rather than dynamically grow it to one direction or another thorough the game.

 

Basically, the ideal game for me would be the champloo of alright/interesting heroes of BG1 w/ dialogues (that might have a hook/reward for keeping them around eg hero buff) with the more powerful heroes/elaborate heroes of BG2... But yeah, we already know what we're going to expect from the game companion-wise - moreover, new NPC's are always a lot of work for designers.

 

I liked the idea Storm of Zehir's dialogue system as well, though at times I felt like I had too much control over whether my companions could pipe up or not. As a result, none of the characters really resonated with me or felt real. I'd rather that they pop in to say something when it's useful, whether or not you ask them to or not - just like an actual person might in real-life.

Yeah, good idea. You could ask for team's thoughts (your a group that wanders together after all) on topics or some of them chime in AND take over the convo/ask a question or lead it somewhere else... like in real-life. You shouldn't have direct control for NPC's to comment.The vanilla NWN2's one-line comments were just comical so well, it's work for Avellone. )

Edited September 19, 2012 by IEfan

[Undecaf]

Update 4 is up in the KS page, no doubt soon here too.

 

Beta access to $140 tier and GOG.com release of the game for a couple of snippets.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Undecaf

[Milten]

I personally didn't like Zehir system. Some people see it as team's thoughts, but I see it as hivemind with small alignment/class fluctuations.

[Nivenus]

I personally didn't like Zehir system. Some people see it as team's thoughts, but I see it as hivemind with small alignment/class fluctuations.

 

That's why I'd favor taking what works about it (companions contributing to conversation) and remove it from the player's control. I love the idea of companions taking a more active role in conversations with random NPCs, but I don't think SoZ's implementation was the best way of accomplishing that.

[vril]

Regarding Races, I am sure we will see a Human, Elf, Dwarf as the base races. For any other races that are added as part of the stretch goals, I'd like to see some original races, for instance a Minotaur, Centaur, Lizardmen would be something different.

[Kissamies]

For any other races that are added as part of the stretch goals, I'd like to see some original races, for instance a Minotaur, Centaur, Lizardmen would be something different.

No satyr? I'm not sure the Master would approve.

[bigdogchris]

One "feature" that I'm really disappointed with in newer RPG's, like DA:O, is that NPC/companion's level is set mirrored to your primary character when you find them.

You do realize that Baldur's Gate worked this way, right? (It wasn't a perfect mirror, but I recall many characters scrounging about for XP with Imoen so that they could make it to level 2 before going and meeting Khalid & Jahiera, so that they would be higher level when they joined up. Wasn't always easy for a multi-class.)

That's not enitirely true. NPC's level can be different based on when you encounter them but they are not mirrored and some NPC's are the same level regardless of when you find them.

 

In DA:O NPC's where automatically leveled up to be the exact same as you.

 

I understand this is a sensative topic to some people, so if you care to agree to disagree with me then I am happy with that. I just wanted to make sure the developers understand some people enjoy, in my opinion, NPCs that are more unique and flavorful, rather than level cloned NPC's.

 

Thanks.

Edited September 19, 2012 by bigdogchris

[Azure79]

I would like to see formations play more important role in combat. BG/IWD series had formations, but they did little to impact actual gameplay apart from deciding which party members were attacked first.

 

I would also like to see enemies use formations of their own and part of the tactical planning was your party breaking up enemy formation while maintaining theirs.

 

For example, your party comes across a squad of goblins, which are weak individually but formation up so that shields are up front and archers are behind. This gives the archers signifcant bonuses to defense from any frontal attack and gives the shield wielders added protection from arrows and flanking attacks. They don't break that formation but stand their ground. Your party is in a similar formation, with two sword and shield warriors up front, a ranger and thief in the middle and a wizard and cleric bringing up the rear.

 

This party formation will offer bonuses to defense for party members behind the two warriors, but if the warriors charge at the goblin line from too far away, the formation breaks and the goblin archers will have better chance to hit your more squishy members. So your objective is to get close while keeping formation and to break up the goblin formation when you get there.

 

Maybe your ranger and thief can stealth and flank using disorienting combat skills to break the line. Maybe you can advance slowly keeping everyone in formation with the wizard casting a protective shield to stop arrows coming down over your shields while your ranger pops up periodically to launch an arrow at high ranking targets, angling his shots up so they go over the enemy shields (that would be one of his skills). Once close your warriors could weapon swap to long two handed weapons and smash through the shield wall causing the archers to panic and run. Your archer and thief would clean up individual goblins with ease while your mage and cleric unleash their spells now that they aren't targets for the archers.

 

Something like that would be fun. Or at least in my head it is.

[Cantousent]

It's really a resource issue. What I think would be ideal is letting the player designate anyone from the PC to the NPC be the party leader. Hell, maybe the PC is one of a band of people with a variety of motives that just happen to coincide. Maybe the PC could find himself part of someone else's merry band rather than being the one picking up all the strays. Think of how liberating that could be. You have to participate in conversations, but it's not up to you to arbitrate everything. Maybe you start out as part of a band of people, but the players who are more controlling or ambitious could end up in control. Then there's dialogue where the PC participates but doesn't always control everything. Yeah, it would be tough to keep the player engaged while making the dialogue more freestyle, but think of the breadth of variety you could have in such a system. Every dialogue would not need to be either PC driven or PC arbitrated. He could be a bystander, simply listening to the interlocutors, or insert himself. He could sometimes initiate conversation or sometimes have others initiate conversations with him, but he could jump into conversations. Want to be a strong, silent type? Aspire to be the leader of your group? It's all up to you. I haven't played Zehir. I was all NWNed out by the time it hit the shelves. It sounds like it's way closer to what I'd like than anything I've seen so far.

[Chandrey]

I'm really looking forward to playing this April 2014 cannot come soon enough!

[Paul D]

I would like to see formations play more important role in combat. BG/IWD series had formations, but they did little to impact actual gameplay apart from deciding which party members were attacked first.

 

I would also like to see enemies use formations of their own and part of the tactical planning was your party breaking up enemy formation while maintaining theirs.

 

For example, your party comes across a squad of goblins, which are weak individually but formation up so that shields are up front and archers are behind. This gives the archers signifcant bonuses to defense from any frontal attack and gives the shield wielders added protection from arrows and flanking attacks. They don't break that formation but stand their ground. Your party is in a similar formation, with two sword and shield warriors up front, a ranger and thief in the middle and a wizard and cleric bringing up the rear.

 

This party formation will offer bonuses to defense for party members behind the two warriors, but if the warriors charge at the goblin line from too far away, the formation breaks and the goblin archers will have better chance to hit your more squishy members. So your objective is to get close while keeping formation and to break up the goblin formation when you get there.

 

Maybe your ranger and thief can stealth and flank using disorienting combat skills to break the line. Maybe you can advance slowly keeping everyone in formation with the wizard casting a protective shield to stop arrows coming down over your shields while your ranger pops up periodically to launch an arrow at high ranking targets, angling his shots up so they go over the enemy shields (that would be one of his skills). Once close your warriors could weapon swap to long two handed weapons and smash through the shield wall causing the archers to panic and run. Your archer and thief would clean up individual goblins with ease while your mage and cleric unleash their spells now that they aren't targets for the archers.

 

Something like that would be fun. Or at least in my head it is.

 

The opportunities for formations to allow truely tactical plays are immense. It could even become Strategic rather than tactical if there is the ability to change the party mix between battles, allowing formations to be planned based upon party mix and the battle to be had. It would also be great if you could have mutiples of the same class in a party; creating a party of mages, or rogues for example. This would allow you to match the skill required to the environment and situation perhaps.

 

Formations, and exporation of such tactical/strategic play within an RPG is one of the things I am looking forward to.

 

 

[Pidesco]

Unpinned to clear the clutter in the first page.

[C2B]

Unpinned to clear the clutter in the first page.

 

Ha, you wrote this post first before unpinning.

 

------ I some random thing I noticed.

[Pidesco]

I usually do that.

[C2B]

I usually do that.

 

So, why did you use past tense.

 

WHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHY

 

Don't you care about what horrors you may unleash upon the world?

[Tsuga C]

Boreal forest dwarves? At first I was against the classical fantasy races, but apparently you're doing a good job staying away from the rpg clich�

 

Sounds like a prime home for the nibelung.

[Jorian Drake]

I hope you will allow a special "pet" to be an exception of the max 6 companion rule, I think here of the cat/dog/wolf/tiger/falcon partner mainly for nobles/hunters/druids/shamans/animal trainers and similar

 

as for "godlike" character races, I suggest you look at the godling classes you can find for the Pathfinder RPG to get some inspiration on how they could work and advance through leveling/experience gain, also throw in heritage of various mythical/legendary creatures, both European or Asian originating, although Indian creatures and gods could also be interesting if built upon if they act as source for godling/godlike powers for these special classes and abilities

[BrainMuncher]

Sorry for necro, I can't seem to view the attachment in the OP, it says I don't have permission.

[Gorth]

The attachment is the "IWD Style" picture showing the female dwarf ranger (before her name was revealed). Relatively small resolution.

[tychokepler]

Do we know roughly how many possible followers there are going to be? Or is it just the currently revealed ones and then make-your-own guys

[simon_templar]

The Set-Up

The player witnesses an extraordinary and horrific supernatural event that thrusts them into a unique and difficult circumstance. Burdened with the consequences of this event, the player has to investigate what has happened in order to free themselves from the restless forces that follow and haunt them wherever they go.

Well the same as Arcanum, BG, etc.

 

I know that game should start with exploding vulcano but this is boring already, it would be more interesting when, people are against you because of your choices not because you're special.

[Leferd]

Do we know roughly how many possible followers there are going to be? Or is it just the currently revealed ones and then make-your-own guys

 

Currently it's at 8. http://www.sorcerers.net/forums/showpost.php?p=779950&postcount=3