I want my environment to matter

[ncguthwulf]

Do you guys want to have to think about things like:

 

At night, your characters that don't have night vision suffer a -1 to hit, -2 for ranged.

 

In swamps, everyone is moving at half rate. On ice, chance to fall if you move faster than half move. On sand, 25% move penalty, etc.

 

Certain spells don't work indoors, others get bonuses in tight conditions.

 

Fireballs light objects on fire, cause walls and stuff to collapse. Additionally, the area of affect of a fireball is altered by objects. The idea of taking cover has merit.

 

Environmental hazards, bullrushing someone over the side of a cliff or into a big fire has an affect.

 

Certain races and classes get bonuses or penalties based on night/day, nature/city/subterranean environs, vs certain monster types, maybe even during seasons.

 

Cover, does hiding behind a rock give you bonus AC vs the crossbowman? Or does it make no difference where you archer is standing in relation to theirs?

 

Range, short, medium and long range with associated bonuses and penalties.

 

Because I know I do. I hate it when I am fighting on a map and I position my archer partially behind a tree and it makes no difference to the enemy archers chance to hit me. I hate it when I use a knock back effect and there is some invisible wall (the zone boundary) that prevents me from sending the enemy sailing off a bridge. I want to be able to have my warrior duck behind a wall, fireball the enemy force, then have him emerge and go back to melee. As opposed to merely having to worry about him being within or outside the static radius of the spell.

[Pshaw]

I'd honestly love to see almost all of these things in a game. I would just much rather see them in a Turn-based game. I feel like too much strategy and modifiers in a real time with pause system gums up the works and make things overly frustrating. At some point in RTWP you have to give over the AI unless you just want to be pausing and handing out new orders every 10 seconds. If you give over to the AI in a system like you've described it's a recipe for frustration when your companions just don't do what you want.

 

So while I certainly want all of these things I just don't know if I want them in PE. Or at least I don't think I'd want all of them in PE at the same time, maybe just a couple would keep it simple enough for the combat style. I certainly would love for AoE to be blocked by objects as I feel it can be a bit too strong in most RPGs.

[Felithvian]

Yes, yes & yes!

 

Throw away Black Isle's combat system (Pause/Unpause) and bring some Xcom to PE. Realms of Arkania or Fallout Tactics are good examples for a decent xcomish system.

Edited November 22, 2012 by Felithvian

[Dream]

Yes, yes & yes!

 

Throw away Black Isle's combat system (Pause/Unpause) and bring some Xcom to PE. Realms of Arkania or Fallout Tactics are good examples for a decent xcomish system.

 

Because that's what people funded, right?

Edited November 22, 2012 by Dream

[Agelastos]

Yes, yes & yes!

 

Throw away Black Isle's combat system (Pause/Unpause) and bring some Xcom to PE. Realms of Arkania or Fallout Tactics are good examples for a decent xcomish system.

 

Because that's what people funded, right?

 

People funded an old-school, isometric, party-based tactical cRPG in the same vein as the old Black Isle games. That doesn't mean that it has to be mechanically identical to the IE games or the original Fallout games. If Obsidian thinks that it can improve upon the concept by borrowing ideas from other games, then they should do so. At least IMO.

 

That said, I don't want them to get rid of the RTWP combat system.

Edited November 22, 2012 by Agelastos

[Jojobobo]

I'm in agreement for the most part, but reduced movement speed in swamps would just be annoying.

[UpgrayeDD]

\At night, your characters that don't have night vision suffer a -1 to hit, -2 for ranged.

Just as you could make the agreemeant that its harder to hit in melee with low light it would also be harder to defend in melee as well. As far as ranged goes it depends on wether or not the target or attacker has light srouces near them. Not really for or against this idea.

 

In swamps, everyone is moving at half rate. On ice, chance to fall if you move faster than half move. On sand, 25% move penalty, etc.

You'll think is is an awesome idea until the time comes when theres a large area of swamp. And I can see it now the cries of "I would never change my mind about this I love this idea". In any video anything that limits and slows down mobilty just comes off as annoying. It wont add to the fun of the game. Will it add a little bit of realism? Sure. But will it make the game more fun? No I can think of a lot of times in game where a slow down affect of the environment just makes me sigh at the pace. I can remember those places in games and not in a fun way. However I can't think of a time where I thought to myself "Oh I really wish they made my character go at half pace right now!" Those don't exist for me.

 

Certain spells don't work indoors, others get bonuses in tight conditions.

I'm fine with this, but the ladder would likely be difficult to impliment.

Fireballs light objects on fire, cause walls and stuff to collapse. Additionally, the area of affect of a fireball is altered by objects. The idea of taking cover has merit.

This honestly sounds like it would be more devolpment time then it would be worth. The fire affects sound cool and all but its so inconsequential that it husts. And considering that spells like those are fire damage on not physical damage collapsing walls doesnt sound too likely. And if the walls collapse the whole building comes down and kills your party? Line of sight for a fireballs damage path isn't a bad idea but baldurs gate already did this so that seems like a non-issue.

Environmental hazards, bullrushing someone over the side of a cliff or into a big fire has an affect.

They already said no grappling. I really can't see this going into the game.

Edited November 23, 2012 by UpgrayeDD

[HangedMan]

I can see these ideas having an appeal, but I don't want them in PE, either. As for why... well, upgrayeDD has already done a wonderful job.

[ncguthwulf]

Night fighting, I dont think it is worth arguing. I think delivering attacks at night is harder.

 

Swamp stuff:

 

Perhaps nothing stupid like being in a GIANT swamp map where the mechanical effect is that you spend 3 minutes travelling the map instead of 1.5.

That is dumb. But having patches of the map have certain environmental factors might be nice. So on a map we could have some deep swampy areas and some level ground. Players that choose to scout the map with a stealth character might discover there are some outlaws that use predominantly melee weapons. That player may decide to set up on the opposite side of a deep swamp patch in order to get extra attacks on the melee types as they try to close.

 

Fire:

Give people the choice... rush through the fire and take damage but get close to your foe faster or go around.

 

Buildings Collapse:

 

Obviously not an instant kill. You might have a character with near supernatural stength wearing plate... a flimsy wooden ceiling falling on his head is going to suck but not kill him (represented by taking damage). But I would love to have a fight go down in an alley, see some scaffolding and time my fireball to cause the scaffolding to fall on the approaching enemy.

 

 

Cover would be harder, but possible. I don't think it should be nearly as pivotal as in XCOM:EU. I am thinking more like creating zones. If your character is within X distance of a tree, perhaps a small bonus to AC vs ranged. The whole idea of the hit bonuses and AC style system is that the characters are actively attacking and defending in ways that are not explicitly a result of player input. So if I (in real time) see a bunch of archers and run my mage to a tree then it should be assumed the mage will duck behind the tree to avoid arrows.

[Aldereth]

Yes, yes & yes!

 

Throw away Black Isle's combat system (Pause/Unpause) and bring some Xcom to PE. Realms of Arkania or Fallout Tactics are good examples for a decent xcomish system.

 

Yes, Xcom turn base FTW : )

 

(I know, not going to happen)

[Tamerlane]

I'd love Xcom-style environmental destruction and fire effects, but it's not really... possible... for them.

 

BG had Call Lightning, which did not work indoors.

[Kore]

Half of those I would absolutely detest, the others I'm mostly neutral towards.

 

I would hate arbitrary slowing down of my party as you suggest in ice or sand. The only merit it holds is realism which is vastly outweighed by the annoyance it would cause me. As far as I am concerned no part of the game should annoy me, we're playing a game so complete realism will never be reached and so sacrificing the realism that would be brought by making my party have to wade through a swamp is utterly worthwhile if it means I'm not slowed down.

 

Having penalties apply to certain races at certain times or light bonuses could be interesting but it could be nearly as annoying as being slowed down. It entirely depends on whether I can alter it without it being annoying, e.g. a light ball spell or infravision, but then what is the point in that since it would just become a chore for me to do. No thank you.

 

Spells only working outdoors sounds like it would break balance to me. If it's balanced then I'm happy with it, but if druids end up getting gimped because of it then I strongly disagree with this suggestion.

 

Pushing people into fires, spells working differently in tighter spaces, taking cover and setting light to items sounds good. I approve of those suggestions as they add tactical choices to the game.

Edited November 25, 2012 by Kore

[Kore]

Yes, yes & yes!

 

Throw away Black Isle's combat system (Pause/Unpause) and bring some Xcom to PE. Realms of Arkania or Fallout Tactics are good examples for a decent xcomish system.

 

Because that's what people funded, right?

 

People funded an old-school, isometric, party-based tactical cRPG in the same vein as the old Black Isle games. That doesn't mean that it has to be mechanically identical to the IE games or the original Fallout games. If Obsidian thinks that it can improve upon the concept by borrowing ideas from other games, then they should do so. At least IMO.

 

That said, I don't want them to get rid of the RTWP combat system.

 

If PE wasn't RTWP I would be sorely disappointed. It is one of the key ingredients to the success of the IE game imo. If you remove the RTWP then it becomes a completely different game.

Edited November 25, 2012 by Kore

[Tamerlane]

As far as slowdown effects in swamp or sand go, that'd be something neat in a fight, but I think it'd be best disabled while exploring.

 

Just as I'd like to see different move speeds for different characters in fights, but wouldn't want that while exploring.

[Kore]

As far as slowdown effects in swamp or sand go, that'd be something neat in a fight, but I think it'd be best disabled while exploring.

 

Just as I'd like to see different move speeds for different characters in fights, but wouldn't want that while exploring.

 

Sure, I could go for this. Features that allow me to make tactical choices during combat are great, but just as long as they don't frustrating me when I'm exploring

[Dream]

Yes, yes & yes!

 

Throw away Black Isle's combat system (Pause/Unpause) and bring some Xcom to PE. Realms of Arkania or Fallout Tactics are good examples for a decent xcomish system.

 

Because that's what people funded, right?

 

People funded an old-school, isometric, party-based tactical cRPG in the same vein as the old Black Isle games. That doesn't mean that it has to be mechanically identical to the IE games or the original Fallout games. If Obsidian thinks that it can improve upon the concept by borrowing ideas from other games, then they should do so. At least IMO.

 

That said, I don't want them to get rid of the RTWP combat system.

 

Bioware thought they could improve on the IE games with Dragon Age. That went well.

 

I'd rather Obsidian spend more money on making the game look cooler and giving it a bigger/better story rather than on reinventing the wheel.

[Pipyui]

Absolutely yes to RTWP. Absolutely yes to terrain modifiers for combat, stealth, and any other particular modes as appropriate (not exploration). Day/night combat modifiers I'm not too keen on - while it may be "realistic," it'd also be darned annoying and superflous. I'd accept and welcome it perhaps in a few dungeons where it serves a narrative purpose, but not as a core gameplay mechanic created solely to hamper me 50+% (caves and the like) of the time. Lighting modifiers to stealth and perception are enough to make day/night gaming dynamic in my opinion. If you can't see the game screen without a torch or light spell, you're already crippled enough.

 

Dynamic environments I'm not even sure are feasible in a 2.5D game. Placed collapsable walls sure; but burning away trees, especially collapsing ceilings? I don't think is a realistic expectation to hold the devs to. Implementing physics effects on non-3D environmental objects is not gonna happen, and I doubt the 3D placeables will be prevelant enough to make it worthwhile for them either. That being said, placed objects like scripted collapsible walls revealing hidden paths, would be easy and A-OK.

Cover:

If your character is within X distance of a tree, perhaps a small bonus to AC vs ranged. The whole idea of the hit bonuses and AC style system is that the characters are actively attacking and defending in ways that are not explicitly a result of player input. So if I (in real time) see a bunch of archers and run my mage to a tree then it should be assumed the mage will duck behind the tree to avoid arrows.

This. Also, determining whether or not this character is linearly "behind" an environment object is cake (linearly, PC-Tree------------------Attacker provides cover, Tree-PC-----------------Attacker does not).

[Heresiarch]

It's Project Eternity, not some Dawn of War II. All these cover, lighting, and terrain modifiers are worthless for all practical purposes in an RPG, so there is no point in adding them in just for the heck of it. Getting shot at by an archer? Loose LoS and let your mage blast his arse with a fireball or run up to him and kick his butt yourself. As simple as that.

[SophosTheWise]

Yes, yes & yes!

 

Throw away Black Isle's combat system (Pause/Unpause) and bring some Xcom to PE. Realms of Arkania or Fallout Tactics are good examples for a decent xcomish system.

 

Because that's what people funded, right?

 

People funded an old-school, isometric, party-based tactical cRPG in the same vein as the old Black Isle games. That doesn't mean that it has to be mechanically identical to the IE games or the original Fallout games.

 

 

But the combat mechanics were big part of those games. I mean especially Icewind Dale was basically a dungeoncrawler based on the RTwP system. IE Games heavily imply RTwP and I think it would be a bad thing to change that.

 

Sidenote: I don't particularly enjoy turnbased-combat.

[JFSOCC]

It's Project Eternity

Indeed, and since PE doesn't exist yet, it can be anything. how amazing!

[Dream]

It's Project Eternity

Indeed, and since PE doesn't exist yet, it can be anything. how amazing!

 

Well, in that case, I've always been partial to shooters...

[Frisk]

Dynamic environment, where you can basically blast/burn/smash anything ... is simply not going to happen. We already know that much of the environment will basically be pre-rendered - the stuff you see will not exist as individual objects, and thus cannot be destroyed as such.

 

Of course there will be objects in the game that you can interact with - maybe buildings you can set on fire, chests you can smash or statues you can blast into small pieces, but that will be the exception - implemented on a case by case basis if it serves the story purpose, and those things will anyhow exist as independent objects, not as a part of the background.

[jezz555]

I think I may be going against the consensus here but I'm not really in favour of the aforementioned changes. Imo it is needlessly complex, takes away from the enjoyment of exploration as you have to worry about the hazards of your terrain, and furthermore is likely beyond the scope of PE. I don't totally hate the idea or anything, but it seems to me to fit more into a third person rpg, like dragon age or w/e, rather than this kind of rpg.

[ncguthwulf]

To those that thing it is needless or needlessly complex: I am kind of tired of playing games that are simply stats competitions on a painted background. Trees, rocks, mud, sand, ice, water, at best are only obstacles my model has to go around instead of being interactive.

 

I don't want it to be as in depth or critical as Xcom. Hard Cover in Xcom was a 40% penalty to attacker to hit chance. That is nuts.

 

But in a rpg, class based system, some sort of modification to the combat from the environment would be cool. Higher ground for archers, using cover, fireballs into a group of enemies in scrub brush... awesome.

[jezz555]

I am kind of tired of playing games that are simply stats competitions on a painted background.

 

So you backed PE why? I get what your saying but combat is sort of peripheral to crpgs anyway, I would argue that at their core, they are more about storytelling and customization. Higher ground, cover, ect. would be cool, but something I'd expect to see more in a shooter/fantasy combat game like dragons dogma or something than PE. Not to say it's a bad idea as tactics definitely do play a role in combat here, but I would say it is indeed needless.

Edited November 28, 2012 by jezz555