What type of engine for Book II

Here's where all things related to Book II are being discussed!

What type fo engine for Book II

Option #1
136
66%
Option #2
43
21%
Option #3
26
13%
 
Total votes: 205

User avatar
macdude22
Council Member
Posts: 178
Joined: November 8th, 2007, 9:20 pm

Post by macdude22 » November 27th, 2007, 3:29 pm

I mean I'm fine with single too, it's a fun take on the genre as well, gives you a little more attachment to your character. I've only dabbled in the demo (waiting for the mac build) but I don't have a huge beef with solo, it seems to work well and to be honest if it stayed through to Book III ok with me. Again if it meant Book II were to come out sooner I'd say solo it is.

User avatar
Amasius
Apprentice
Posts: 31
Joined: June 16th, 2007, 2:05 pm

Post by Amasius » November 27th, 2007, 3:39 pm

Hm, I'd prefer a partybased Book II, but probably it's first and foremost an economic decision. If a new engine for a partybased system needs more time to build it costs also more money and has hence to sell more games. Is the market for partybased RPGs bigger, would it really sell more? That's possible, I think partybased combat would be more interesting, but the most important thing is that Basilisk Games stays in business so that we see many more titles in the future. I'd play Book II/III rather with a single character than not at all.

User avatar
Gothmog
Marshall
Posts: 114
Joined: August 9th, 2006, 3:01 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Post by Gothmog » November 27th, 2007, 3:52 pm

I like the solo-thing. Youve got a wonderful engine. Power up the resolution and enhance it a bit.
So theres more time for the story and other great things.
"FUL IR"

PaSquall
Steward
Posts: 66
Joined: March 25th, 2007, 12:46 pm

Post by PaSquall » November 27th, 2007, 4:10 pm

I'll answer this when I've played EB1 (not much free time at the moment :cry: ).
However I'd LOOOOOVE to get a new EOB/Wizardry/MM-style game...
But yes, the fact that it's a trilogy means it'd be better to keep it isometric.

vid
Senior Steward
Posts: 94
Joined: November 19th, 2007, 5:09 pm

Post by vid » November 27th, 2007, 4:30 pm

BasiliskWrangler wrote:vid: Think of the way Book I handles turns. To deal with a party, we need to change over to a phased, action-point system. Unless the party members are completely autonomous (no one wants that) there has to be a functional way for you to control everyone.

To achieve this, everything but the way we draw the tiles to the screen will have to be replaced. The combat engine needs completely rebuilt from the ground up. The travel and movement system needs replaced. Inventory and character stat management needs drastically updated, etc., etc.
hmm if you would for example with a party of four, let a monster only move/attack every 5th round, it should work right? So: MonsterTurn1, PartymemberATurn1, PartymemberBTurn1, PmCT1, PmDT1 End of Round 1, start Round2. The rest of the world would either have to be slowed down like the monster through this equation or you could implement a kind of battlefield (just mirror the surroundings) where the time flows like mentioned above, and the other world is not touched at all. The order of the partymembers and monster could be computed by an initiative value (dex/speed).

Edit:
You even have the implementation there: the haste spell.
Last edited by vid on November 29th, 2007, 4:19 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
GSV3MiaC
Senior Council Member
Posts: 248
Joined: June 14th, 2007, 2:57 pm

Post by GSV3MiaC » November 27th, 2007, 7:00 pm

I voted #1 because I'd like to see E-2 before I die, and we've just spent an age debugging the current engine. Put the effort into more interesting scripting (quests, dialogue, options and branches). You'll get more money sooner that way.

If you want to go with Option 3, fine - start a new series (like Spiderweb did with Geneforge vs Avernum/Nethergate).

dak
Marshall
Posts: 100
Joined: November 20th, 2007, 10:49 am

Post by dak » November 27th, 2007, 7:42 pm

For the good of Basilisk software, keep it the way it is in book 1, just fix the issues you learned about in book I, with balance and so on. Maybe higher res and more detailed chars + running. But for book 2 keep the same engine.. if you change everything it is not eschalon anymore + it'll be too much work. If you go for the same engine you can focus on a great story, balance stuff from book 1, and making a bigger game since you don't have to deal wtih a lot of engine issues! The other two is too much work, and fans of book 1 will must certainly buy book two if it is more of the same with just some fixes from book 1.
If you want to go with Option 3, fine - start a new series (like Spiderweb did with Geneforge vs Avernum/Nethergate).
Seconded! If you want to do some dungeon master or wizardry style, do it with another game, called something else!

tiresius
Fellowcraft Apprentice
Posts: 53
Joined: October 1st, 2007, 9:28 pm

Post by tiresius » November 27th, 2007, 8:48 pm

I voted for #3 because whatever is easier to get a party system going is fine by me. The phase system of Wiz8 isn't that bad.

You could really go old school and have combat like the Ultimas, where you zoom into an enlarged view of your surroundings and your party expands. Maybe that only works for the simplest of tile-based games.

There's also the option of the Spiderweb Exile games combat mode, but that might be a step backward. Avernum is a little annoying to watch with the congo-line, but workable.

So it's tricky to come up with a good system for isometric display, I'd be interested to see what you had planned already.

But I will say this: *ALL* the classic CRPGs you mention taking inspiration from are party based. One of the main things I loved about those classic CRPGs was the party! I wouldn't dare say it's false advertising because you're clear this game is single player. But I was disappointed nonetheless.

Jaesun
Senior Steward
Posts: 95
Joined: November 20th, 2007, 9:06 pm

Post by Jaesun » November 27th, 2007, 9:27 pm

Voting Option One. I think the engine is fine as is. Add a few more tweaks to it and I'd be happy with that for Book II... plus it won't take you longer to develop. :D

Save the new engine for after Book III. ;)

User avatar
leonhartt
Fellowcraft Apprentice
Posts: 52
Joined: November 21st, 2007, 11:53 am
Location: Elderhollow

Post by leonhartt » November 27th, 2007, 11:13 pm

dak wrote:For the good of Basilisk software, keep it the way it is in book 1, just fix the issues you learned about in book I, with balance and so on. Maybe higher res and more detailed chars + running. But for book 2 keep the same engine.. if you change everything it is not eschalon anymore + it'll be too much work.
My same feelings too. It's better to keep the book 1 engine and extend the features and modify parts of it to make it more lively, interactive, etc... for book 2. :)

focus
Apprentice
Posts: 33
Joined: August 10th, 2006, 1:32 am
Location: UK

Post by focus » November 28th, 2007, 2:11 am

Voted 1. Quite happy with what is in Book 1 and would like to see more of the same + some new features rather than a major redesign. Not too bothered about party based gaming myself.

RezoApio
Marshall
Posts: 126
Joined: October 18th, 2007, 9:27 am
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Post by RezoApio » November 28th, 2007, 5:54 am

BasiliskWrangler wrote:Jaesun:

Well, that's a good question because we don't have combat set up at all yet. I imagine Option #3 to be sort of a phase-type attack where everyone has a default action each combat round, and when you click the combat button, the round is played out according to initiative and everyone's default actions.

For example, you could make the Ranger in your party:
> Always attack what Party Leader is attacking.
> Always attack most powerful creature.
> Always attack creature closest to death.
> Always attack most distant target

Or of course, you could assign a special one-round action such as:
> Special Attack
> Use object
> Cast spell
> Defend self
> Defend party member

Something like this is what I envision.

****Please remember this is very, very early guesses as to how combat might be performed. ****
I think I would like to see a good implementation of this. Especially the choice of "Good" action would be nice. Let's say an option like "Do as the leader says" and pouf Silence over the scene.. Or attack the same as leader but pouf Full Darkness over the scene.

I like this idea because this would be the closest you can imagine to a paper-based RPG. This would be a very hard task to make it a good system, but I really trust you guys to make wonders. So I will vote option #3

Also what I like in this system is that if we can have NPC in the party, you can make the AI change the order given. Let's say I ask the rogue to backstab the ennemy leader, but he goes invisible and just rob all the chest while letting me deal with the ennemy... (maybe totallt irrealistic idea but...)

On the other hand I prefer the option that makes book II available in 1 year rather than have to wait for 3 ;-)
Gardez suffisament d'humour pour ne pas perdre l'esprit au nom de la raison.
Ama la realidad que construyes y ni aun la muerte detendra tu paso.

Loriac
Senior Steward
Posts: 97
Joined: November 19th, 2007, 9:06 pm

Post by Loriac » November 28th, 2007, 8:18 am

I voted option 1, but option 2 would work as well, if party based was the clear preference for people playing the game.

I hate the idea of option 3. Whilst it is old school and compares to Bards Tale, Wizardry and so on, I much prefer the tile based approach you currently have in Book 1. I've always preferred this way of handling combat because you have to think much more strategically, and you can really maximise the use of skills and abilities. For example, anyone who's played the Gold Box games would probably agree that as a tactical challenge, they are way ahead of anything using a phase-based non-positional approach.

In addition, I'm not really sure how some of the skills such as hide/move silently translate to the phase based approach. Whilst you can still implement this, I think its not as satisfying as moving your character around to the correct position manually before launching the attack.

One thing I would suggest under Option 1 however, is to increase the combat options, particularly fighter-type options so that the game isn't just a click fest for melee types. Ways to do this might include hit locations, status attacks (such as knockdown, target arms / legs to affect target accuracy or movement), disarm attacks, grappling or wrestling type attacks, combat styles - e.g. different styles that have to be learnt but give advantages/disadvantages vs. different monsters or other styles).

Putting in this type of addition might make the combat more 'interesting' for those who feel that the game is a bit simplistic with just one character.

One other thing to consider under solo option 1 would be the ability to hire mercenaries (who are AI controlled) with the ability to issue commands to them (i.e. as a free action on your turn, you can command that they should attack melee / attack ranged / cast offensive spell / heal you / etc). Whether or not they actually followed your command might be a skill check against an attribute, or alternatively maybe a leadership skill could be added to the game.

Anyway, my main point is, please don't implement option 3, and if that means adding feature sets to the current engine then so be it :D

User avatar
Saxon1974
Officer [Platinum Rank]
Officer [Platinum Rank]
Posts: 668
Joined: August 24th, 2006, 10:42 pm

Post by Saxon1974 » November 28th, 2007, 12:57 pm

Im having a hard time voting on this one.

I would like to see party based game play, but I don't think the difference in the fun of playing the game would be enough of an improvement that I would want to wait another year + for development time. I think the game is great and huge fun right now. The best aspect for me is exploring and finding new interesting things, and that wouldn't change with party based play.

So, based on that I voted for Option #1.

These are some things I would like to see in a sequel using option # 1.

- Larger cities with more interesting NPC's with more dialog. Maybe just have some NPC's to talk to who tell you about the world, but dont necessarily have to offer you a quest\quests.

- Quests having more Choices. Maybe something like having a couple of guilds that hate each other, and in the game you can choose to side with one or the other, but not both. And in choosing it affects what type of quests you can get, and who is nice to you and helps you and who doesnt.

- More world lore, either through manual or through the in game books.

As much as I love Book 1, I really think more background world story, bestiary etc....in a heavier manual would have set the scene for the game world much better.

I would prefer you finish the trilogy isometric before changing to a first person view, then start a new game with option # 3.

Basilisk, what would be your guestimate on how long each option might take? How much time different would there be between option 1 and 2?

I also think realeasing book II sooner rather than later would be a good thing to keep the momentum rolling. 3 years between games seems an awfully long time. I loved back when games would come out yearly.

Rune_74
Officer [Gold Rank]
Officer [Gold Rank]
Posts: 484
Joined: December 19th, 2006, 5:35 pm

Post by Rune_74 » November 28th, 2007, 3:33 pm

I mentioned to this to you before...but I think a single player rpg would work with followers you could hire/recruit for quests would work...I think you should focus more on bringing in content and enlarging the world instead of heading off in a technological area.

One thing to consider is: How about making this 3 parter a solo experience then, after you complee that move on to your #3 option using the lore you have built up with book 1 to 3 arc...by this time you should have alot of stuff built up.

Just my 2 cents.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 5 guests