Poll. Should the 'Invisible Combat Round' of IE Games Return ?

[wanderon]

Don't forget that the final game will feature real companions as opposed to the placeholder BB companion team and I suspect the real ones may come with individual more robust and useful AI which may have quite an effect on group combat at least for those who choose to use it.

[constantine]

Surely overall game speed is an issue, be it movement or atk/spellcasting and should be the first aspect in combat to receive modification.

 

Then it may be that 'lethality' of combat be tweaked, unless of course this is intentional. Personally I m fine with it, as it adds to realism.

 

My belief is that PoE would be better with the IE system, but since this is never gonna be the case, let's work with what we have.

 

It *may* turn out to become an enjoyable system, also one that does not fail to convey all the audio-visual goodness that this beautifully designed game has to offer.

[Sensuki]

It makes speed manageable. It communicates events over time more effectively. It helps the player learn when to pause to execute actions more effectively and not haphazardly pause more often than they should. It helps then gauge ai actions and when to execute movement or action.

What UI exactly? Without an explanation, UI could take us to the moon.

 

How does synchronized round timers fix an issue with speed?

Refer to my posts on the reason why I think rounds require less pausing. Note that I also did not say that the game should use them, only that I think that the IE game implementation was actually good, rather than what the developers have told us "WE DONT NEED ROUNDS WHERE WE'RE GOING HAH"

[Shevek]

UI means anything and everything from indicators which explain current actions to lists or the like which specifiy action order. It encompasses combat feedback, how actions are executed or queued and all other manner of ways in which a USER INTERFACES with existing game systems. Do you really need me to define UI?

[Sensuki]

That's not what I asked. You tell me what UI changes would improve combat speed ?

[Karkarov]

That's not what I asked. You tell me what UI changes would improve combat speed ?

Personally I think putting the action meter on the portrait would help as it would allow it to be easier to read and more accurate due to it's increased size and removal from the middle of all the combat insanity.  Would it fix the "speed", no, but it sure would be a nice change.

Edited November 2, 2014 by Karkarov

[Sensuki]

I have been thinking the same thing, because the health display above your own characters that have a portrait is superfluous information that only clutters the screen. I don't think they should be OVER the portrait though, but rather underneath them - and also should be able to be disabled.

But yes that has absolutely nothing to do with speed, Shevek made the statement that changes to UI would fix the issues with the speed - I would like to hear him explain how.

[Shevek]

Improve interfacing with the current combat speed, you mean? Indicators on portaits could let us know if characters are in cooldown, acting, out of cooldown, etc. A portrait bar could list character order in the top edge of the screen (similar to tb games). Action indicators above characters could be of variable lengths to better telegraph the length of cooldowns. Many many things could be done on the feedback side. Similarly, a character getting critted or hit by an AoO could give out various barks or be animated differenly to be better help the player see what is happening in the heat of the moment. The list goes on and on. There are many possible solutions.

[Karkarov]

I have been thinking the same thing, because the health display above your own characters that have a portrait is superfluous information that only clutters the screen. I don't think they should be OVER the portrait though, but rather underneath them - and also should be able to be disabled.

 

But yes that has absolutely nothing to do with speed, Shevek made the statement that changes to UI would fix the issues with the speed - I would like to hear him explain how.

Let me rephrase, when I said over the portrait I just meant with them.  Ideally I would put it on the right side of the portrait filling up from bottom to top.

 

Something like this?  Rough example:

 

Edited November 2, 2014 by Karkarov

[Sensuki]

Nah I don't like that, I'd prefer a bar underneath them like this

 

Really bad mspaint mockup

 

 

This would also have issues interacting with Monk, Cipher and Chanter resources and Animal companions ... but yeah it could be made to work.

[prodigydancer]

Nah I don't like that, I'd prefer a bar underneath them like this

Indeed. It's essentially a progress bar and horizontal progress bars are more convenient.

[Karkarov]

 

Nah I don't like that, I'd prefer a bar underneath them like this

Indeed. It's essentially a progress bar and horizontal progress bars are more convenient.

Don't concur, with this type of bar you want it to be longer, because the longer it is the more accurate it can be tracking progress.  That said if you had to do it Horizontal I would put it on top as that requires less UI mucking about, you just have to move buff icons up like 10 pixels.

 

Like so!

 

Edited November 2, 2014 by Karkarov

[Sensuki]

On the top? :/  What kind of design sensibility is that? In pretty much all games that have character portraits, bars like that are always at the side or bottom of portraits. 

[Karkarov]

On the top? :/  What kind of design sensibility is that? In pretty much all games that have character portraits, bars like that are always at the side or bottom of portraits. 

Not necessarily, it also it requires less "looking away" if they are on top.  It additionally remains consistent with the current action bar which is "on top" of your character.  Most games that are seriously about action bars and timers these days either have the action meters completely detached from portraits or oriented based on the party portrait locations.  If at the top of the screen on bottom, if at bottom on top.

[Sensuki]

Those things are more of a peripheral vision thing tbh and I definitely think they'd be better at the bottom - but that's not surprising because we seem to have the opposite opinions on many of those Main HUD things.

[constantine]

Whether top or bottom, let s hope they include it somewhere there as it would be much, much more helpful !

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Personally I think putting the action meter on the portrait would help as it would allow it to be easier to read and more accurate due to it's increased size and removal from the middle of all the combat insanity.  Would it fix the "speed", no, but it sure would be a nice change.

 

This is something I too have wanted for some time. Moving the action bar onto portraits (or just beneath), then enlarging those portraits and moving them to the side. I truly cannot understand why they have gone with a bottom oriented UI.

[Karkarov]

 

Personally I think putting the action meter on the portrait would help as it would allow it to be easier to read and more accurate due to it's increased size and removal from the middle of all the combat insanity.  Would it fix the "speed", no, but it sure would be a nice change.

 

This is something I too have wanted for some time. Moving the action bar onto portraits (or just beneath), then enlarging those portraits and moving them to the side. I truly cannot understand why they have gone with a bottom oriented UI.

That's what most games do these days, ether bottom or top oriented UI, most of them go bottom these days.  There is more room to go from right to left and vice versa than bottom to top as well which is why most large UI elements are horizontally layed out.  It is just easier to fit your UI in there.

[wanderon]

 

 

Personally I think putting the action meter on the portrait would help as it would allow it to be easier to read and more accurate due to it's increased size and removal from the middle of all the combat insanity.  Would it fix the "speed", no, but it sure would be a nice change.

 

This is something I too have wanted for some time. Moving the action bar onto portraits (or just beneath), then enlarging those portraits and moving them to the side. I truly cannot understand why they have gone with a bottom oriented UI.

That's what most games do these days, ether bottom or top oriented UI, most of them go bottom these days.  There is more room to go from right to left and vice versa than bottom to top as well which is why most large UI elements are horizontally layed out.  It is just easier to fit your UI in there.

 

 

It's all about you wide screens see what you've made us do!

[Karkarov]

It's all about you wide screens see what you've made us do!

In fact only game I know of coming out soon with a "down the side" UI element that starts at the top is everyone on this forums favorite... Dragon Age: Inquisition.  Even it puts "most" of it's UI on the bottom edge of the screen though.  The only part on the "side" is the party health meters.

[Sensuki]

Serpent in the Staglands.

[Seari]

Action meter on portraits is a beyond horrible idea.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Seari

[Sedrefilos]

I replayed BG 2 earlyer this year and it felt almost as great as the 1st time I played it. And it was annoying at the exact points it was back then: combat and rest. When I first played it I didn't know there were rounds. I was clicking for the character to drink the potion and they'll be swinging swords just to miss for the 100th time or just stand there staring at the monsters until the magical 6 seconds would pass. I was pushing it and pushing it again until something else happened (like character died) and the frustration went up!

Wether one prefers the round based system or true real time is matter of oppinion. But seeing that not a single game has ever used this system again, especially Bioware games, shows it is not that popular. And thankfully most people don't like it. And thanakfully there is no chance they'll go with this system in PoE.

[Sensuki]

But seeing that not a single game has ever used this system again, especially Bioware games, shows it is not that popular.

 

All games that used a D&D system used a 'per-unit' round. Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2 both used them. You will be clicking and clicking just like you were in the IE games to drink a potion, except it might even possibly take a very long time to drink a potion if you're wearing heavy armor.

 

The length of time between actions will in many cases be even longer in Pillars of Eternity, the only difference is that actions are not determined by an apr/6 second time division, instead they are measured in direct seconds. It baffles me how people don't seem to understand this.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Sensuki

[Sedrefilos]

If a character acts in that many seconds depending of their armor, ability etc and another acts differently during that time because of their armor, abilities etc, this is true real time not turn based.

 

And starting posts about how the game would be better with the IE combat style isn't even constructive because the game won't take that direction whatever several people in these forums say.