Taking cover~

[Osvir]

With X-Com: Enemy Unknown around the corner (2 more days <3 release on October 12th where I'm at).

Will Obsidian be influenced and inspired to include something similar to this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtNpHPW-gvc&feature=fvwrel

EDIT: Somewhere around 3:50~

 

Will we see a cover system utilized?

 

Tim Cain talked about "not being able to attack from prone stance" but what about the crossbow? I could easily fire a bolt with a crossbow from prone, or with a gun... is it completely out of the question?

 

P.S. X-COM: Enemy Unknown looks so badass o.o

Edited October 10, 2012 by Osvir

[Ashram]

Being able to use terrain and positioning to affect battle would be a great tactical addition to the game. Archers on high ground should be at an advantage, if you trip someone ...prone person is at a disadvantage....perhaps you are firing your crossbow from around a corner....all viable. I hope the devs can work that into gameplay.

[Lv99Wizard]

Would having cover mechanics just devolve into the party hiding while the mages throw spells at people? That's probably a worst case scenario though. It could work.

[Ieo]

Immediate observation: That's a 3D zoom-in environment with free rotating camera.

 

While I like LOS play and all that, the terrain view is going to be more restricted. I don't think it would work well in the locked isometric view; terrain levels could be difficult to see. Specific 3D objects like large crates, sure, but in general.... definitely not on that scale.

[Osvir]

Immediate observation: That's a 3D zoom-in environment with free rotating camera.

 

While I like LOS play and all that, the terrain view is going to be more restricted. I don't think it would work well in the locked isometric view; terrain levels could be difficult to see. Specific 3D objects like large crates, sure, but in general.... definitely not on that scale.

 

Yes, of course. I wasn't even bothering explaining or bringing up camera angles because I felt we've got that "covered".. not intended as a pun xD

[rjshae]

Being able to use concealment for defense against ranged attacks would be a welcome addition to the tactical options. It's a realistic behavior and the enemies can use it just as much as the player. I'm just not sure how readily it can be implemented in a game of this type.

[Ieo]

Being able to use concealment for defense against ranged attacks would be a welcome addition to the tactical options. It's a realistic behavior and the enemies can use it just as much as the player. I'm just not sure how readily it can be implemented in a game of this type.

 

I honestly think it would be too much work for regular terrain---now, the IE games (especially BG series, don't remember IWD on that count) did have LOS play for larger objects, bridges, and indoor barriers like crates. I think. It's been a while (holding off a regular replay until BG:EE). But the enemy AI wasn't all that great... They'd often just stand there, I think, rather than trying to charge in or find cover for themselves. I think the key besides 3D terrain representaiton/programming is enemy AI as well. If such a thing were implemented in PE, it could be reduced to stupid cheese by that alone...

[LadyCrimson]

I definitely like defense tactics/option like these, but to repeat the others, not sure how well it could be done in P.E. Would there even be something like crouching? Would it be something we as the player would have to command/control or would party/AI use crates as cover on their own?

[rjshae]

I guess the developers could encode information into the maps that describes whether a particular unwalkable area provides partial cover and allows adjacent ranged fire to pass through it. The AI could then compute line of sight to the target, check if it intersects an unwalkable area, then have the creature behave accordingly (crouch or whatever). Fire around corners would be a little more difficult to implement, I think.

[Ieo]

And if there's any channeling/concentration/cast times for the ranged characters and casters, that immediately throws everything out--if the enemy isn't stupid, we'd probably end up seeing a lot of stand-offs. Not terribly tactical.

 

I'll stick with my LOS play in 3D free camera games like MMOs. (Not into FPS otherwise.)

[Osvir]

And if there's any channeling/concentration/cast times for the ranged characters and casters, that immediately throws everything out--if the enemy isn't stupid, we'd probably end up seeing a lot of stand-offs. Not terribly tactical.

 

I'll stick with my LOS play in 3D free camera games like MMOs. (Not into FPS otherwise.)

 

Not necessarily, often times I see "Leaving cover" in case you have to channel anything. In other words, your Chanter would expose himself if he started chanting/buffing up.

 

Take this scenario for instance, 2v2:

You have a Fighter and a Chanter, the Chanter is hiding behind a rock and the Fighter is engaging the enemy "tank" on the field. The enemy also has a ranged-type creature behind cover shooting at your Fighter. Not much of a stand-off, currently the Fighter is at a disadvantage 2v1. When the Chanter exposes himself (leaving cover) to chant a buff for the Fighter, the ranged-type enemy will change focus (depending on difficulty of course) and target the Chanter instead, the odds are even. The same thing, if you would direct your Fighter to take down the enemy Archer behind cover, you could possibly see the enemy "Tank" do the same towards your Chanter.

 

We'll see what happens. Although Obsidian has an idea, I am sure they will be inspired by X-COM (it being, after all, a part of the "Old-School turned Modern" genre too). X-COM: Enemy Unknown had 2 years of development too

[Ieo]

Not necessarily, often times I see "Leaving cover" in case you have to channel anything. In other words, your Chanter would expose himself if he started chanting/buffing up.

 

Take this scenario for instance, 2v2:

You have a Fighter and a Chanter, the Chanter is hiding behind a rock and the Fighter is engaging the enemy "tank" on the field. The enemy also has a ranged-type creature behind cover shooting at your Fighter. Not much of a stand-off, currently the Fighter is at a disadvantage 2v1. When the Chanter exposes himself (leaving cover) to chant a buff for the Fighter, the ranged-type enemy will change focus (depending on difficulty of course) and target the Chanter instead, the odds are even. The same thing, if you would direct your Fighter to take down the enemy Archer behind cover, you could possibly see the enemy "Tank" do the same towards your Chanter.

 

We'll see what happens. Although Obsidian has an idea, I am sure they will be inspired by X-COM (it being, after all, a part of the "Old-School turned Modern" genre too). X-COM: Enemy Unknown had 2 years of development too

 

Oh, I was visualizing an equal party by assumption for some reason. But yes, party makeup will factor heavily into the scenario. I think it will depend a lot on the engine as well; maybe Unity can do that sort of thing, maybe not. But from a fixed isometric view, practical usability is going to matter most.

[jivex5k]

I love x-com but it just doesn't seem to fit in a BG style game.

Maybe I'm just being narrow-minded here but it just doesn't feel right if that makes sense.

To a certain extent cover exists in that if your out of the enemy's line of sight.

 

I'm no developer though, who knows it could be a perfect fit and a blast to execute.

I know x-com is fun as hell, but that's apples and oranges.

[Aedelric]

Not Xp compatible damn them! I will not upgrade till I am forced, I love X-com but it is not worth upgrading for, especially since the only thing stopping compatibility is sloppy coding.

 

Anyway, I agree with others, it may not fit well into this setting, X-com is fully 3D with dynamic camera angles. With a true isometric game it would be a utter pain to try and target people that are concealed and hard to tell if your own people are in cover or have half their body sticking out. It does not feel right and I have a hard time visualising a scenario where it would work well.

[jivex5k]

Not Xp compatible damn them! I will not upgrade till I am forced, I love X-com but it is not worth upgrading for, especially since the only thing stopping compatibility is sloppy coding.

I felt the same way until I upgraded.

Windows 7 is leaps and bounds better than XP, it's worth the upgrade just to upgrade windows.

And X-Com....yeah it's worth it man!

[Aedelric]

Not Xp compatible damn them! I will not upgrade till I am forced, I love X-com but it is not worth upgrading for, especially since the only thing stopping compatibility is sloppy coding.

I felt the same way until I upgraded.

Windows 7 is leaps and bounds better than XP, it's worth the upgrade just to upgrade windows.

And X-Com....yeah it's worth it man!

 

No, an upgrade is not worth it, their is nothing 7 can do that I can not do with what I have, my music works, my games work, youtube works, Google chrome works. Unless windows 7 has a feature that lets money magically generate from my un-used disc drive (Thank you age of digital download gaming) then an upgrade is pointless.

 

As I said, X-com would work on XP if it was not for sloppy coding, which I am not going to reward with a purchase.

 

Anyway, lets not derail the topic, back to cover.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Aedelric

[Osvir]

I think it could work for what other reason would the prone stance be part in the game except for crawling through small passages in dungeons as well as taking cover?

 

Prone stance has been confirmed. We'll see what spawns, but I can envision it working very well with a game like Baldur's Gate. I'll be able to comment further on this tomorrow, when the screenshot is released, what kind of graphical style are we looking at etc. etc.

http://www.supercheats.com/guides/files/guid/metal-gear-solid-4/mgs4act1s19.jpg

[Ieo]

I think it could work for what other reason would the prone stance be part in the game except for crawling through small passages in dungeons as well as taking cover?

 

Prone stance has been confirmed. We'll see what spawns, but I can envision it working very well with a game like Baldur's Gate. I'll be able to comment further on this tomorrow, when the screenshot is released, what kind of graphical style are we looking at etc. etc.

http://www.superchea...mgs4act1s19.jpg

 

Where's the confirmation? (Not that I don't believe you, it's just hard to find a lot of information that's scattered everywhere.)

[Osvir]

I think it could work for what other reason would the prone stance be part in the game except for crawling through small passages in dungeons as well as taking cover?

 

Prone stance has been confirmed. We'll see what spawns, but I can envision it working very well with a game like Baldur's Gate. I'll be able to comment further on this tomorrow, when the screenshot is released, what kind of graphical style are we looking at etc. etc.

http://www.superchea...mgs4act1s19.jpg

 

Where's the confirmation? (Not that I don't believe you, it's just hard to find a lot of information that's scattered everywhere.)

http://forums.obsidi...-dungeon-grows/

Update #16 with Tim Cain. I think it's the first question:

Kaboom asks: Hi Tim! I'm curious how the close combat in P:E will turn out. Will the melee of P:E encompass stuff like reach weapons, opportunity attacks, flanking, grappling, charging, prone/standing-modes and so forth?

 

Tim: Yes, we are looking to include many of these features into our close combat system. Specifically, opportunity attacks and flanking are definitely in, as well as charging. We're not sure about reach weapons yet (we need to figure out if that attribute on a weapon will be worthwhile enough in combat and will supportable with the appropriate UI), and while we will support prone positions, you won't be able to attack while prone because the animations involved are too different from attacks while standing that we would have to make every animation twice, once for standing and once for prone. This limitation also means that grappling abilities will not be included. There are too many new animations needed and special case limitations that apply, e.g. how does a human grapple a centaur or a dragon or an ooze?).

 

EDIT: Yep, first question. They do talk about the animation sequences so I am sure a "Taking cover" thing won't be part of it (as that would require more animation sequences), but is hasn't been ruled out either so I'll just roll my thumbs and see.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Osvir

[Aedelric]

I missed that, thank you Osvir.

 

Edit - If prone is in and we can not use skills while prone, what use will it be? I can not imagine it would be much use for sneaking around.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Aedelric

[Osvir]

Dungeon crawl most likely

 

Crawling under creates in a warehouse, getting your Rogue behind the enemy. Secret areas... cave tunnels that you have to crawl through and similar most likely :D

[Ieo]

Okay... (yay, charging, that could be implemented in good effect to address the whole threat/aggro thing in that other thread) No attacking while prone--I remember reading that and thinking it would be a form of avoidance, like evade/dodge. And crawling through a dungeon's hidden passage, under a trap, etc.

 

The above scenarios do interact with the environment at a basic level, but topographical information required for the detailed static backgrounds would be over the top, IMO, with regard to combat cover. There are too many mechanical variables against it, unless Obsidian does believe the benefits outweight the disadvantages for creating such a LOS mechanic.

 

(1) Poor usability without free camera in 3D zoom environment

(2) Mapping every single topographical element in outdoor and indoor environments for such usage (I imagine a lot of bugs for this alone)

(3) Adjusting enemy AI to account for cover techniques (good AI is not a cheap or simple thing to accomplish)

(4) Finer adjustment of 'cover' usage depending on prone or standing positions (not really appropriate for an iso game)

 

Mm, I rather doubt most players would actually like that sort of thing added to combat, in relation to the old school IE games. I think it would introduce too much "ground" complexity to a tactical overhead playstyle. We should still be able to make use of large objects as we did in IE, like crates and big boulders and trees, but ground topography where being prone would actually make a difference... too complicated for little benefit, IMO.

[Osvir]

Makes sense.

(1) Poor usability without free camera in 3D zoom environment

(2) Mapping every single topographical element in outdoor and indoor environments for such usage (I imagine a lot of bugs for this alone)

(3) Adjusting enemy AI to account for cover techniques (good AI is not a cheap or simple thing to accomplish)

(4) Finer adjustment of 'cover' usage depending on prone or standing positions (not really appropriate for an iso game)

 

(1) I don't agree. EDIT: Because I believe it could be done with an isometric view. I said it in another post "Envisioning" it. It would require lots more work as you state in (2-4) of course, doesn't mean that it would be "poor usability". I feel as if the isometric view is highly underrated*

(2-4) makes sense, thanks does sound like it could take an awful lot of time. Though as I said, as well, X-COM looks like this today, and it started development 2 years ago according to Wikipedia.

 

Though X-COM and Baldur's Gate are different in playstyle, strategy, interface and much much more. X-COM is much more "Mission-by-Mission" based whilst Baldur's Gate is more of an exploration type RPG.

 

* As we see in the modern day isometric takes on it. Look at STASIS for example:

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60512-2d-isometric-graphics-warning-large-pictures/

Edited October 10, 2012 by Osvir

[Ieo]

Makes sense.

(1) Poor usability without free camera in 3D zoom environment

(2) Mapping every single topographical element in outdoor and indoor environments for such usage (I imagine a lot of bugs for this alone)

(3) Adjusting enemy AI to account for cover techniques (good AI is not a cheap or simple thing to accomplish)

(4) Finer adjustment of 'cover' usage depending on prone or standing positions (not really appropriate for an iso game)

 

(1) I don't agree. EDIT: Because I believe it could be done with an isometric view. I said it in another post "Envisioning" it. It would require lots more work as you state in (2-4) of course, doesn't mean that it would be "poor usability". I feel as if the isometric view is highly underrated*

(2-4) makes sense, thanks does sound like it could take an awful lot of time. Though as I said, as well, X-COM looks like this today, and it started development 2 years ago according to Wikipedia.

 

Though X-COM and Baldur's Gate are different in playstyle, strategy, interface and much much more. X-COM is much more "Mission-by-Mission" based whilst Baldur's Gate is more of an exploration type RPG.

 

* As we see in the modern day isometric takes on it. Look at STASIS for example:

http://forums.obsidi...large-pictures/

 

The "2 years ago" is really irrelevant, though--you're talking about a different genre of game; your statement skates dangerously close to "because it's an older game with a 3D rotating zoom camera with topographical environment, PE graphics should be 'improved' to match that tech." That's a shooter that doesn't have to take into account timed skills across many different classes, among other things. In several instances of the video example, it looks like the player would have to zoom in completely with the free rotating camera to get a good view of an enemy target and "lay of the land" (e.g. 3:45-ish)--if the video showed the entire battle being played out in pure isometric mode, it would be much better evidence. But this isn't the case.

 

STASIS looks like an iso with good graphics. I don't see how that's relevant to this thread, unless you can produce video/screenshots of it using cover mechanics in pure iso mode. The prone positioning mechanics are a separate thing...

 

Trying to mix genres--like people asking for Dragon Age-style full VO and cinematics on top of console-style finishing moves and stuff--that would never fly with the type of game Obsidian intends Project Eternity to be and with the audience it targets.

 

So, yeah, I just don't see it happening.

[Osvir]

http://en.wikipedia....own#Development

Looking closer at it I see some things that I should've looked up first more carefully and detailed:

A; It says "Very very big budget"

B; Started development 2008 so it's 4 years of development. I was sure I read it at as 2010 on another page, oh nonetheless.

C; A team of 50-60 members

 

Which makes the "2 years" indeed irrelevant so I'll not even bring up the point I intended to. I admit defeat by Knowledge

 

What I am simply stating is that "I can see it working", not "It will happen". I can speculate that Obsidian might be tempted to make it happen, though, but that's an entirely different conversation shrouded in too many "Maybe's" that Obsidian probably are over-encumbered with already. There's a lot of great ways that X-COM handles strategy and tactical control (the purely isometric original one), and it is also interesting to see how the team who have been developing Enemy Unknown, tackles and improves on the game.

 

If it isn't obvious, I am quite excited about X-COM: Enemy Unknown for the same reason. It is one of those great old-school classics that'll always sit honorably on the shelf, now remade for a new (and old) audience as well as with new/improved technology. What can be learned from this?

 

This reflects my own opinion:

Being able to use concealment for defense against ranged attacks would be a welcome addition to the tactical options. It's a realistic behavior and the enemies can use it just as much as the player. I'm just not sure how readily it can be implemented in a game of this type.

 

EDIT: Forgot this..

STASIS looks like an iso with good graphics. I don't see how that's relevant to this thread

 

It is relevant because it is old meets modern and modern meets old. Which Wasteland 2, Shaker, X-COM: Enemy Unknown, P:E is all about. It is also relevant because P:E is going to be an isometric game and these forums are about P:E.

Edited October 11, 2012 by Osvir