Overreaction theater!

[Pangur]

The strength and range of opinions just means that people are passionate about their RPGs, which is a good thing. I'm not too concerned that somebody's pet peeve or preference is going to "wreck" this project.

I'm not worried that this might ""wreck"" the game. It's just that, the developers have already shown that they trust us, and I think we should trust them back, not add to the pressure.

 

And how do we really know we will/won't like something until we've seen its implementation? Guns are a good example for me. I don't like the idea of "guns" in fantasy, but that doesn't mean that I'll enjoy the game less because it features early models. It all comes down to details--which we don't yet know.

Exactly. When I initially read there would be guns, my first thought was "oh no, not guns." But then they explained it, and now I'm absolutely fine with that idea.

[GammaHamster]

let's face it, Vancian magic kind of sucks as a gameplay mechanic.

I don't remember it sucking in any of the IE games.

 

I remember countless times facing a tough fight, dying and reloading only to pick a new set of spells.

I see, i died and had to reload = game sucks.

 

The IE games basically encouraged meta gaming and not cleverness if you think about it.

 

IE games encouraged preparing for a fight.

 

But you had to know what to expect in the fight to properly prepare for it.

 

So what? Why is this a good reason to remove preparation at all?

[Lady Evenstar]

I suppose different players consider different things to represent the essence of the old games. For me it's character building, party tactics, and the opportunity/need frequently to pause and think about my next move.

 

In general, I think life is easier the fewer lines you draw in the sand. Hold hard to first principles but be sure those are actually what you're holding to and not some secondary notion you've associated with them.

[Tale]

I like preparation. I think if you prepare in good faith, but turn out wrong, that it's a setback, not a reload. That there's a chance to fix it. Introducing yourself to a situation with the intent of learning for a reload is too metagamey for my tastes. I've always hated it. It's trial and error all the same.

[ogrezilla]

I'm just saying it wasn't all that well implemented as far as strategy was concerned. If the game was giving you hints that would help you decide what to use, sure. But usually the first encounter was just a guess, and then once you actually saw the encounter you could prepare for any subsequent tries if you died the first time. It wasn't strategic because you didn't figure anything out; you were shown the answer.

[Amentep]

I must be the only player who ran through the IE games with only very minor adjustments to the spell casters picked spells. For the most part not having a spell wasn't a TPK in the IE games and the only times it might come close you were usually signaled beforehand by the game what you might need. Therefore I usually kept the most utilitarian spells for my spell casters - even in BG 2 when my PC was a mage.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Amentep

[ogrezilla]

I must be the only player who ran through the IE games with only very minor adjustments to the spell casters picked spells. For the most part not having a spell wasn't a TPK in the IE games and the only times it might come close you were usually signaled beforehand by the game what you might need. Therefore I usually kept the most utilitarian spells for my spell casters - even in BG 2 when my PC was a mage.

you were absolutely not the only one. This talk of strategic spell preparation and careful spell conservation do not remotely match my memories of those games.

Edited October 2, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Sargallath Abraxium]

I'm just saying it wasn't all that well implemented as far as strategy was concerned. If the game was giving you hints that would help you decide what to use, sure. But usually the first encounter was just a guess, and then once you actually saw the encounter you could prepare for any subsequent tries if you died the first time. It wasn't strategic because you didn't figure anything out; you were shown the answer.

 

 

...ya musta played different IE games than I's played, cuz I learned preparation was key in IE games battles; many encounters wit' many different stategies...an' I wasna shown the answer...not once...as far as first encounter bein' a "guess"; not if'n ya was prepared fer what may lay ahead...see dots...see dots connect...connect dots, connect...

 

 

...WHO LUVS YA, BABY!!...

[LadyCrimson]

I must be the only player who ran through the IE games with only very minor adjustments to the spell casters picked spells. For the most part not having a spell wasn't a TPK in the IE games and the only times it might come close you were usually signaled beforehand by the game what you might need. Therefore I usually kept the most utilitarian spells for my spell casters - even in BG 2 when my PC was a mage.

In BG1 I hardly ever used anything but magic missle.

I also didn't find mages completely useless when they ran out of spells during a fight ... that's what the slingshots were for.

[Tale]

I must be the only player who ran through the IE games with only very minor adjustments to the spell casters picked spells. For the most part not having a spell wasn't a TPK in the IE games and the only times it might come close you were usually signaled beforehand by the game what you might need. Therefore I usually kept the most utilitarian spells for my spell casters - even in BG 2 when my PC was a mage.

I doubt you're the only one. But I imagine you must understand the system fairly well. Definitely better than I did back in the day. Spellcasters were some of the worst for me. Did I have the spells prepared that allowed the rest of my party to even do damage? Did I have enough dispels or breaches. I loved the battles when I played them, but they also felt swingy, too dependent upon those breech/warding whip/dispels to land and remove the right protections.

 

I think at one point I just decided "screw it" and would use gate slightly off-screen.

 

Then there were other fights were the dominant strategy was to summon as many monsters as possible and pick the enemy off from range while he was distracted. But that seems more a flaw of encounter design than preperation.

 

So I think you make a fair point. Maybe I was just too unfamiliar and the battles didn't really telegraph themselves in advance well enough.

[nikolokolus]

I'm certainly not arguing for a system where every strategy is equal or everybody wins and there are no losers, but there were fights where you absolutely had to have guessed correctly about spells in Baldur's Gate 2 or it was a re-load. Thats's not particularly good encounter design in my opinion.

 

I love tough fights and I like perma death and I especially think players should be punished for stupidity or foolhardiness, but punished for guessing wrong pre fight? In general there should paths to victory that don't require meta gaming knowledge gained by dying and then reloading ... whatever that entails in terms of mechanics.

[GammaHamster]

I'm certainly not arguing for a system where every strategy is equal or everybody wins and there are no losers, but there were fights where you absolutely had to have guessed correctly about spells in Baldur's Gate 2 or it was a re-load. Thats's not particularly good encounter design in my opinion.

 

And how design that removes a possibility of choice is any better?

[Sargallath Abraxium]

I'm certainly not arguing for a system where every strategy is equal or everybody wins and there are no losers, but there were fights where you absolutely had to have guessed correctly about spells in Baldur's Gate 2 or it was a re-load. Thats's not particularly good encounter design in my opinion.

 

I love tough fights and I like perma death and I especially think players should be punished for stupidity or foolhardiness, but punished for guessing wrong pre fight? In general there should paths to victory that don't require meta gaming knowledge gained by dying and then reloading ... whatever that entails in terms of mechanics.

 

 

...name one fight in SoA/ToB where ya absolutely had ta guess correctly 'bout spells or reload...I canna name one where ya jus' hadta randomly guess an' had no way ta prepare in some way' aforehand...jus' one...

 

 

...WHO LUVS YA, BABY!!...

[ogrezilla]

I'm certainly not arguing for a system where every strategy is equal or everybody wins and there are no losers, but there were fights where you absolutely had to have guessed correctly about spells in Baldur's Gate 2 or it was a re-load. Thats's not particularly good encounter design in my opinion.

 

And how design that removes a possibility of choice is any better?

its not. luckily that's not an issue because its pretty clear that the planned system for this game will not remove choice.

[Lady Evenstar]

I prefer that success hinge on basic preparation and the ability to adjust tactics/consumables mid-encounter. One of the things I dislike in MMOs is the expectation that a responsible player will have looked up strats for the fights before entering a dungeon--and set pieces that require specific preparation (as opposed to ordinary prudence) encourage looking things up or chronic reloading rather than inventive gameplay.

[Amentep]

I must be the only player who ran through the IE games with only very minor adjustments to the spell casters picked spells. For the most part not having a spell wasn't a TPK in the IE games and the only times it might come close you were usually signaled beforehand by the game what you might need. Therefore I usually kept the most utilitarian spells for my spell casters - even in BG 2 when my PC was a mage.

I doubt you're the only one. But I imagine you must understand the system fairly well. Definitely better than I did back in the day. Spellcasters were some of the worst for me. Did I have the spells prepared that allowed the rest of my party to even do damage? Did I have enough dispels or breaches. I loved the battles when I played them, but they also felt swingy, too dependent upon those breech/warding whip/dispels to land and remove the right protections.

 

I think at one point I just decided "screw it" and would use gate slightly off-screen.

 

Then there were other fights were the dominant strategy was to summon as many monsters as possible and pick the enemy off from range while he was distracted. But that seems more a flaw of encounter design than preperation.

 

So I think you make a fair point. Maybe I was just too unfamiliar and the battles didn't really telegraph themselves in advance well enough.

 

I never found this to be the case (but usually only played on normal, not the harder setting either).

[JWestfall]

RPG Mechanics - where every player is a self-professed expert game designer, and which no actual game designer can ever seem to get perfect.

 

Of course there will be reaction.

[ogrezilla]

I prefer that success hinge on basic preparation and the ability to adjust tactics/consumables mid-encounter. One of the things I dislike in MMOs is the expectation that a responsible player will have looked up strats for the fights before entering a dungeon--and set pieces that require specific preparation (as opposed to ordinary prudence) encourage looking things up or chronic reloading rather than inventive gameplay.

this is why I quit WoW. I loved doing dungeons with my friends because we would figure them out ourselves. Sure, you had to die and try again and that does feel a bit cheap. But at least we were solving the problem ourselves. When I first started raiding, the raid was pretty much brand new so we were figuring the stuff out for a bit. But then other people somewhere in the world finished it and I was forced to just read instructions and watch videos on how exactly to win a fight. I completely lost interest. The game mechanics simply aren't challenging enough in most RPGs for that to feel rewarding. Figuring out the strategy strategy was the rewarding part of the encounters.

Edited October 2, 2012 by ogrezilla

[RosesandAshes]

and maybe if you have to overreact, or just react to something in a negative way... keep it in here so it doesn't clutter up discussion, or make it so that we end up talking about it for pages trying to clear up a misunderstanding or misread word? come back with a thought out comment and concern. not "o noes! the sky is falling!"

 

I hear you, OP, I hear you.

There will always be people who declare the game is RUINED FOREVER! because they aren't making PE into an exact clone of their favourite IE game. Personally, I think everyone needs to (as the elves say) chillax and trust that Obsidian will manage to make a great game regardless of cooldowns or level-scaling or whatever....

[Tale]

I never found this to be the case (but usually only played on normal, not the harder setting either).

How did you defeat Sarevok?

[Amentep]

I never found this to be the case (but usually only played on normal, not the harder setting either).

How did you defeat Sarevok?

 

By cheating (the one fight in all of the IE games I never did honestly).

 

*I should add me cheating was not because my mages didn't have the right spells in place

Edited October 2, 2012 by Amentep

[Sargallath Abraxium]

I never found this to be the case (but usually only played on normal, not the harder setting either).

How did you defeat Sarevok?

 

By cheating (the one fight in all of the IE games I never did honestly).

 

 

 

 

...'Tep, I's shocked...

 

 

 

 

...WHO LUVS YA, BABY!!...

[Amentep]

I never found this to be the case (but usually only played on normal, not the harder setting either).

How did you defeat Sarevok?

 

By cheating (the one fight in all of the IE games I never did honestly).

 

 

 

 

...'Tep, I's shocked...

 

 

 

 

...WHO LUVS YA, BABY!!...

 

Well I tried it honestly, and failed; again I don't think it was my mages spells at fault - in fact I did what I've heard others do - I used Dynaheir to summon monsters after using some distance attacks to take out the three henchmen. It was just repeated bad luck, usually getting within a few HPs of taking out Sarevok but getting a bad roll or something.

 

That is until I CLUAConsoled in a few dozen Drizzts that is.

 

I've wanted to go back to do it honestly but have never managed to get to that point again in BG1.

[Merin]

I remember countless times facing a tough fight, dying and reloading only to pick a new set of spells. So in other words, was that a failure of tactics or a failure to guess correctly?

The IE games basically encouraged meta gaming and not cleverness if you think about it.

...no, what it did was tell ya that ya was wrong in yer tactics an' ta rethink the battle...hence roleplayin'...sorry it were not Diablows-like enuff fer ya...

 

Uhm, I don't think your definition of role-playing holds any water.

 

If you die in the game, and you are role-playing...

you kind of have to make a new character.

 

If you are role-playing, there's no "redo" button.

 

What it forces you to do isn't role-playing... it forces you to rethink tactics. Perhaps even strategies.

 

But tactics != role-playing.... unless you are meta-role-playing a gamer who is trying over and over against to win a game's combat.

[Osvir]

I was about to write a novell worth's of a post. Then midway I realized "I was only going to post a video!"

 

By the way, I'm a dreamer

 

Hugs to all you people

 

Many of us clearly draw lines back to Baldur's Gate and the IE games generally being our influence. Let's take a different look on it, what do you want to influence? What do you wish to create, that you feel you as well as others would enjoy? Perhaps you have an idea, but you also understand that this is something you preferably enjoy. You do know that others like other things. Is it possible to combine two ideas? Why, yes, in fact it is.

 

Let's say I have an idea, and so do you, together we could bicker and bite at each other through the idea. Or we can implement our own ideas together with someone else's idea, and work the process through it together.

 

Level-Scaling as far as this goes and the little I've read about it:

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60889-level-scaling-dont-scale-individual-enemies-scale-encounters/

This thread is great, because someone mentioned it in another thread as being great. Then I read it and it proves to be great. The developers will see this too, I'm sure. Will it be implemented? Who knows. The game will be great anyways. Why do I say that which such confidence? Obsidian really brought up many points with Project Eternity in which what kind of game it is going to be, and I am looking forward to seeing what it is (blind-folded mind you).

 

Cooldowns seen here:

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60875-how-cooldowns-can-be-used-responsibly-as-a-combat-mechanic/

I have personally not read the entire thread or every post. I'm lazy what can I say. This thread needs attention! In this thread there is much confusion, and I think some slight information to what kind of direction it might be going would be appreciated. But I think that Obsidian, at this stage, has many ideas themselves at this point. Maybe they like to work with different systems (one is easier, one is more advanced), they might prefer different systems (just like we do), and it might even be so that it isn't entirely decided which way they are going. I think there needs to be a comment on what "Stage" they are in in the different areas of the questions.

 

A digital diagram would be great.

 

Throwing out a Question into the blue. *whistles* will it be answered? (probably not xD)

 

At what stage are you in development? Early writing and drawing "concept stage", organizing, or in an early code writing, modelling process?