Please, no more Cromwell's forges

[Cultist]

Now that I got your attention with the title I will state my concern.

Cromwell's forge is one of the most annoying shops in BG2. Reason - accessibility. Thanks to infamous patching and its location. You have to almost manually position your party to the door all the while 1-character wide ladder forces your party pathing AI to go nuts. Same goes for Planar Sphere - two transitions and the furthermost corner of location.

Overall going to Cromwell's forge was a painful experience. So please, try to avoid such troublesome accesses for frequently visited shops.

[Hassat Hunter]

I think you mean pathing, not patching. Unless the patches changed something about it I don't know

 

It's probably, as mentioned, mostly pathing related, so as long as they fix that it shouldn't really matter where the shop/whatever is...

[Cultist]

Yes, a typo. Pathing of course.

Edited December 23, 2013 by Cultist

[Sabotin]

Well, by what was shown so far, they're going with (too) wide paths, so it will hopefully lessen the issue.

[coffeetable]

A modern desktop CPU is about a thousand times more powerful than a CPU from 2000.

 

Pathfinding shouldn't be a problem.

Edited December 23, 2013 by coffeetable

[Cultist]

if you get to BG config you could set amount of memory dedicated to pathfinding. It was not the problem that game lacked memory, it's the fundamental mechanics. Where game checks constantly if character could get to point X. And mosly that resulted in party running across entire location because other party member was passing in a tight passage.

[Brother Pain]

I agree pathing was a big problem in the BG games, and it may be the biggest problem I had with the series and it's realtime with pausing combat.

 

Other than building every single pathway large enough for most of the party to traverse, you could allow characters to be in the same space, at least out of combat.

 

As for the problems with especially melee characters blocking each each other, I think there should be a better solution than just throwing more memory and processing power at the problem. Not using discrete rounds would be part of the solution certainly, and perhaps some way of setting one character to wait for another to pass before advancing...

[Walsingham]

I am 100% behind Brother Pain's suggestion. Use design smarts, not processor smarts.

[ItinerantNomad]

IF (path is blocked) AND

{ if (blocked object is moving) THEN (Wait for moving object to clear path, recheck in 1 sec for clear)

ELSE (PUSH OBJECT OUT OF WAY() or reroute path())}

ELSE (move to destination);

 

something like that.

Edited December 26, 2013 by ItinerantNomad

[Yonjuro]

IF (path is blocked) AND

{ if (blocked object is moving) THEN (Wait for moving object to clear path, recheck in 1 sec for clear)

ELSE (PUSH OBJECT OUT OF WAY() or reroute path())}

ELSE (move to destination);

 

something like that.

 

 Careful. If a party member does this:

 

 "Wait for moving object to clear path, recheck in 1 sec for clear" 

 

 then the next party member in line will do this check:

 

 if (blocked object is moving) 

 

and it will fail causing: 

 

 reroute path()

 

 (or maybe push through, but) That was probably the exact pathing failure in BG.