Update #41: D&D: Dwarves and Doors

[anek]

 

Just FYI, that is a good level of zoom/character model size ( I don't mean the size of the viewable square). That + 1920x1080 (or what have you) worth of background would look sweet

 

I wonder why the blue circle is so big though, it feels weird to me.

 

 

[Falkon Swiftblade]

 

 

Just FYI, that is a good level of zoom/character model size ( I don't mean the size of the viewable square). That + 1920x1080 (or what have you) worth of background would look sweet

 

I wonder why the blue circle is so big though, it feels weird to me.

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure its there for the other npc's so they don't get right up on each other. Remember, most of the game we'll have party's of 5-6 people with us.

[J.E. Sawyer]

what i am concerned with, is the door covering interactive elements. often in BG and even more often in fallout and arcanum, i could not give certain movement orders to my character because the point i wanted to click was near a door and instead of moving, he was opening-closing the door. even worse was when an object i wanted to interact with was near a door or if the loot was at a point i could not click because the door was on the way.

 

The picture from the update is actually a somewhat poor example for this reason.  There are two steps we're taking to address this: 1) doors placed in levels (other than double doors) will always have their hinges on the far side of the scene (i.e. "up") 2) doors always open away from the character opening it.  We may also implement a third element (but we hope it won't be necessary): a force movement input (e.g. through a key toggle) that ignores context sensitive actions at a location and would allow you to get as close as the collision/pathing permits.

[Kaldurenik]

 

what i am concerned with, is the door covering interactive elements. often in BG and even more often in fallout and arcanum, i could not give certain movement orders to my character because the point i wanted to click was near a door and instead of moving, he was opening-closing the door. even worse was when an object i wanted to interact with was near a door or if the loot was at a point i could not click because the door was on the way.

 

The picture from the update is actually a somewhat poor example for this reason.  There are two steps we're taking to address this: 1) doors placed in levels (other than double doors) will always have their hinges on the far side of the scene (i.e. "up") 2) doors always open away from the character opening it.  We may also implement a third element (but we hope it won't be necessary): a force movement input (e.g. through a key toggle) that ignores context sensitive actions at a location and would allow you to get as close as the collision/pathing permits.

When i read that i was going to suggest a "ignore objects (like doors / chests and so on)" key. This way you can also "loot" things that are behind a door to give a example.

[Somna]

How awkward would it be to introduce locked doors in the game as immobile, attackable NPCs that only move on successful opening/lockpicking?

[Tikigod]

How awkward would it be to introduce locked doors in the game as immobile, attackable NPCs that only move on successful opening/lockpicking?

 

Now that's an interesting thought, but seems rather over the top depending on what you define as an 'NPC' in terms of what elements it needs to consist of to be an 'NPC' rather than just a 'Intractable game object that has extra behaviour associated'.

 

Wouldn't mind knowing what you had in mind to warrant considering making doors much broader objects than say just permitting it to be attackable object of a type that has some variables like sturdiness/lock strength/connection nodes. Really peaked my interest personally in what you may be thinking of. 

 

Sentient magical doors you can engage in conversation?

[Somna]

 

How awkward would it be to introduce locked doors in the game as immobile, attackable NPCs that only move on successful opening/lockpicking?

 

Now that's an interesting thought, but seems rather over the top depending on what you define as an 'NPC' in terms of what elements it needs to consist of to be an 'NPC' rather than just a 'Intractable game object that has extra behaviour associated'.

 

Wouldn't mind knowing what you had in mind to warrant considering making doors much broader objects than say just permitting it to be attackable object of a type that has some variables like sturdiness/lock strength/connection nodes. Really peaked my interest personally in what you may be thinking of. 

 

Sentient magical doors you can engage in conversation?

Unfortunately, it was for more mundane thoughts like making doors attackable.  The reason why is because of the damage threshold/armor type update a few updates back. 

 

The thought is, by treating it like an NPC (non-player character), it wouldn't be as much of a stretch to assign it its own damage threshold or armor type to simulate the (possibly lack of) difficulty in bashing it open.  If the door is really big, it could even be divided up into sections to attack.  On top of that, you couldn't run through NPCs anyway, and I'm not seeing any indication that this has changed.

 

As a "live" NPC, the door will look normal.  Interacting with the door could move it as normal.  If an NPC wasn't dead, you couldn't move through it anyway.  Then if you attack it and "kill" it, the corpse look of the door is a shattered door on the floor.  If you wanted to, you could give it its own loot (shattered pieces of wood and metal or something...). 

 

You could also do the same thing with a treasure chest, except possibly give the "looted" results a different result than if the lock was picked and the chest opened the normal way.

 

And of course, you'd have to shut off the ablity to pickpocket these NPCs, if that's an option.

 

I have NO idea how awkward this would be though.

[McHydesinyourpants]

Concerning the pathfinding doors are a challenge. Will NPCs / Opponents be able to open/close doors? But this is not only a challenge to the pathfinding. There are a few strange situations that happened in existing games

 

1. (Advantageous to the player) Opening a door to just enter a room with hostile opponents --> combat encounter. Retreat from that same room and closing the door --> opponents remain hostile, but don't follow beyond the door --> combat pause to regroup and heal up.
2. (Detrimental to the player) Opening a door to enter a room / hallway with hostile opponents --> combat encounter. Retreat from that same room and closing the door --> opponents remain hostile, but use an alternate path to reach the party and additionally arousing all other opponents which are encountered on the way --> players are surprised at the following stampede of opponents.

There are surely more repercussions and side effects to such a little feature.

If NPCs can open doors how about giving the player the ability to lock a door behind them to prevent pursuit. Rogues could use the lockpicking skill to tactically lock doors to box in enemies or to divide large groups or to allow the player to retreat from a tough fight.

[JWestfall]

Thanks for the update, it's great seeing the development coming along so nicely.

 

I'm also interested in what, if any, tactical considerations doors might have (e.g. blocking, slowing or stopping enemies).  Or if their purpose is simply as an obstacle for the player.

[Helm]

Thanks for the update Adam.

 

So, what will update #42 be about? "Elves and Entrances" ?

Edited February 7, 2013 by Helm

[Lephys]

 We may also implement a third element (but we hope it won't be necessary): a force movement input (e.g. through a key toggle) that ignores context sensitive actions at a location and would allow you to get as close as the collision/pathing permits.

 

As far as visual/input blocking goes, you could always (if it is necessary) have some kind of click-and-hold submenu pop up for the target of interaction.

 

i.e. "Use ---  Chest

Goblin A

Goblin B

Sagani (unconscious)

Pouch"

 

The door could always just be the default target (since you're more than likely going to need to open/close a door in a hurry than you are to loot various containers/dead things in a hurry), so a simple click would interact with the door. The click-and-hold (or just something to differentiate between simple and easy door interaction) submenu would only provide all other very-close-by things as options.

 

This could also be used in corpse-pile-up situations, etc. But, I think someone already commented on that several months back, about how stacked lootables would already be handled. So, really, the door hogging the foreground and input default would be the only issue left, I would think.

[Archon]

Ideally, our artist would only need to model one armor piece - let's say plate body armor - and have it fit all six of our playable races even if the races are all of different proportions and body structure. At the end of the day the same model for plate armor could fit a slender four-foot-tall orlan and a burly seven-foot-tall aumaua.

 

Oh great, another RPG with magical

( GoT inside ) :D

[Tsuga C]

D&D: Dwarves and Doors

Adam Brennecke

 

In preproduction we look at developing systems like this. It may cost us time up front, but will save us hundreds of hours down the road in production. The dwarf ended up being our first test case, and now we have dwarves as playable races working in game.

 

Now this is truly gratifying news. Our Kickstarter funds are being spent with an eye to accruing long-term benefits. All of your years of cRPG experience are showing their worth.

[Hormalakh]

The way I see it, doors should be breakable if they're breakable. (HUh?) I mean that if they're wooden, they would be breakable. If they're solid steel doors, then no, they shouldn't be. Fallout had something like this, didn't it? Some doors were mechanical and some were "energy" and some were "electrical." Obviously, the wooden doors can break, the metal ones need to be picked, and the magical ones burn you to a crisp.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Hormalakh

[Lephys]

^ Strangely enough, even though Fallout had electrical doors and P:E probably won't, it still comes down to whether or not doors can be... hacked.

[Hormalakh]

If a certain door is meant to really keep someone out, the creator of that door would have chosen better materials (unbreakable) for the job. If it's a wooden door into some pleb's house, I should be able to break it down. It's that simple. Then the thieves and the lockpicks still have a job, and the door smashing monsters are happy too.

 

Many have said this, and I agree: breaking down doors was a mainstay of the older games. It wasn't always easy (and feasible for every door) but you could do it and was an option sometimes. Most of the old games had this, at least. Fallout 1/2, Baldur's Gate 1/2.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Hormalakh

[Wombat]

Nice...I guess I can safely presume that non-playable creatures, too, share basic templates such as big cat, manticore and sphinx.  Even for convincing setting, some learned in the world may categorize them under these formats, too.

 

About doors, do you have a solution/solutions in mind to non-hostile NPCs blocking doorways?  Some elements such as this sound pretty silly to be discussed seriously but they often end up frustration when we are actually playing.  Another possible issue would be how hostiles react behind doors, which may be related with stealth gameplay.  Also, in combat, could you make sure the players can see/click on every single interactive element including "unit" in combat (as long as they are not meant to be seen due to fog of war, etc)?

 

As for path-finding, at times, AI doesn't seem to be responding or forget my order.  I don't know why this happens and ideally, there shouldn't be such occasions.  However, if this happens, could you let the players aware when any controllable "unit" is "idle"?

 

I guess that's all I can remember about nuisances related with path-finding/visual limitation of the players for the time being...  Maybe, I should play some of classic games when I have time...

[Suen]

Pathfinding: I'd like a toggable option to temporary stop the group from walking through doors closed but not unlocked. Or, at least, a "lock" skill for the thief. Or the ability to define a path (boring) point by point. 

The scenario I wish to avoid:
I scout an area with my thief.
I enter "sneak" mode, disarm the traps, I unlock and open each door, take a peek inside and close the door.
Then I walk back to my group, and we proceed. 
I click a point further away in the corridor.
Now, the corridor run along three sides of a room with two opposite doors, and full of guards I want to avoid.

My group waltz into the room as that is shortest way to the other side. 

Edited February 7, 2013 by Suen

[Osvir]

 

Similarly I think "Fighters simply existing" can be turned around to "Rogue's simply existing". What if I don't have a Rogue to open doors for me? Why should I have a Rogue to open doors for me? Why could I not have a Wizard that has all the magical capabilities to remove the Lock from existence/disintegrate/Melt the locking mechanism with Fire Spells/Divination or whatnot? 

 

Rogues have bonuses to opening locks, but other classes can take that skill as well.  We won't include spells or abilities that make invested skills obsolete.

 

What about [Wild Sprinting] a door (specifically, Chests are a different deal) a couple of times? Doors is a way to get forward. How important is the prone stance? Will there be other paths instead of lockpicking the door? Will there be places to crawl through instead? Could the Spell School that could have [Wizard Unlock] be an invested Spell School? Is [Wild Sprint] an invested Path or does it come naturally with the Class? Can a Fighter learn [Wild Sprint]? More curiously -> can a Rogue?

 

As a Rogue: Investing in Lockpicking makes "something else" obsolete and investing in "something else" than Lockpicking makes it obsolete anyways (it depends on how the Player builds the class/character), or do we have to spend Lockpicking points on our Rogues? Similarly, in Baldur's Gate I can bash locks which can generate Broken Weapon or Broken Armor from chests. But instead of that, perhaps minor stuff such as consumables, various components in the inventory. "Low tier" items.

 

Similarly, kicking in a door is a different approach than unlocking it and sneaking into the room. Different paths forward.

[Osvir]

Additionally: Investing in Weapon Mastery (Sledgehammers, Blunt, Two-Handed?) could open up an ability that allows some doors to be bashed down?

EDIT: Not a question of making anything obsolete, it is a question and curiosity if there's more than one angle to it. Allowing more Player choice.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Osvir

[Messier-31]

Well, I'm a bit disappointed... this dwarf looks kinda like Jean Luc Picard, with different beards attached. I hope this is really "wark in praaahgress, so don't go whaa?". Besides, the dwarven beard is somethin that their kin are proud of, not make fun of. This is mine imagination of how dwarves should look like, I mean c'mon - isn't he badass? Surely his wallet has "mean mofo" written on it!

 

[kibermiaf]

Thank you so much for the post!
How is the development with unity going compared to your previous efforts with infinity engine?

What things are easier and what are more challenging?
 

[Tamerlane]

Well, I'm a bit disappointed... this dwarf looks kinda like Jean Luc Picard, with different beards attached. I hope this is really "wark in praaahgress, so don't go whaa?". Besides, the dwarven beard is somethin that their kin are proud of, not make fun of. This is mine imagination of how dwarves should look like, I mean c'mon - isn't he badass? Surely his wallet has "mean mofo" written on it!

 

 

The faces in the OP? They look nothing like Jean-Luc Picard. I mean, like... what? I... what? Do all bald people look alike to you or something?

[Jodien]

I think a good design concept on doors and chests is very important, it makes this game not only good but great. Doors really should be interactive to some extend. I want to see more than open/close/unlock options. For instance,

 

* Ability to force doors open using strength. This may result in much noise (and maybe some loss of stamina), which might cause nearby enemies upon hearing the noise moving to the location and attacking the party. So it is a risk to take, either try to find a way to silently open the door (ie. pick the lock, use magic) or face a tougher encounter. Bashing down the doors should take much more time and energy and it should be extremely loud, a very unwanted solution used only in certain situations.  

 

* Ability to listen through doors. In fact to listen anything in an environment might work just like a FOW. Your party has a hearing range, you hear everything in it. Your distance to sound sources and the obstacles on the way dictate your ability to catch them. You can hear conversations behind a door, but with much lower volume. As you get closer you hear better.

 

* Ability to use doors to bar passage. You may close the door to prevent enemies to come through. Force your enemies to use strength to open it in order to reach you. It can be resolved with a Strength contest. If you win you keep it shut, if they win they open the door and get through.

 

* Ability to lock/magically lock the doors if you have the proper key/spell.

 

* Breaking chests may cause fragile items (like potions, scrolls, light clothing) to be destroyed. So it is a risk you take, since you don't know what is in the chest.

 

are the ones I can think of at first thought.

[Wombat]

Just a crazy idea popped up on my similary crazy mind.  Now thinking of imaginary creatures, they are just combination of existing species in our world.  So, is that possible to share these "skeletons" and parts with various creatures?  Relatively simple example is a minotaur, using human skeleton and body with the head of an ox.  As a less simpler example, centaurs, lamias and scorpion men also use human skeletons and parts.  Another simple example is just enlarging cats into big cats, which can be applied to giant something such as giant rats and scorpions.  Gryphons, manticores, sphinxes, and chimeras tend to be copy & paste of different parts.  Complex examples would be lernaean hydras, scyllas and, maybe, medusas.  Also, some Cthulhu creatures use lot of molluscs.

 

Of course, this is a crazy thought from a person without any experience in programming and even if these thing are possible, they could make things complicated beyond necessity or make programmers and artists step on each others' toes.