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
BasiliskWrangler
Site Admin
Posts: 3639
Joined: July 6th, 2006, 10:31 am
Location: The Grid
Contact:

What type of engine for Book II

Postby BasiliskWrangler » November 27th, 2007, 11:41 am

I wasn't quite ready to do this poll yet, but I figured since the other one was posted, I'd put this one up as well. Okay, so we have this Book I engine. We could do several things for Book II, depending on the party/solo poll...

1) Keep the game solo and keep Book I's engine. We'll just modify it for higher resolutions and new features.

2) Go with a party, but completely overhaul Book I's engine because we can't do party-based gaming on this engine. This would pretty much mean re-writing the engine, but we stay isometric like Book I.

3) Go with a party, but take the engine in a radical new direction: an engine that we have been developing that would be similar to Wizardry 8, with hints of Dungeon Master / Eye of the Beholder.
Last edited by BasiliskWrangler on April 23rd, 2008, 4:32 am, edited 2 times in total.
vid
Senior Steward
Posts: 94
Joined: November 19th, 2007, 5:09 pm

Postby vid » November 27th, 2007, 11:54 am

i voted #2 ( just because of party support, the gfx and everything else, technic wise could stay), but i would LOVE to see an dungeonmaster clone from you, maybe for book3?
User avatar
macdude22
Council Member
Posts: 178
Joined: November 8th, 2007, 9:20 pm

Postby macdude22 » November 27th, 2007, 11:55 am

I like party based (4ish players) my self. I'm not against the solo style, in fact I find them pretty fun but there is something about playing as a rag tag group of adventures on the road to riches.
Effidian
Steward
Posts: 67
Joined: November 23rd, 2007, 10:21 pm

Postby Effidian » November 27th, 2007, 12:02 pm

What time is involved with each option? While I want party based, if I had to wait 4 years for a party based Book II but could get a solo Book II in 1 year, then I'd vote for solo. :)
User avatar
BasiliskWrangler
Site Admin
Posts: 3639
Joined: July 6th, 2006, 10:31 am
Location: The Grid
Contact:

Postby BasiliskWrangler » November 27th, 2007, 12:13 pm

Option #2 would take the longest amount of development simply because it is the least of the developed engines so far. It would almost be like writing a new engine form the ground up.

A very rough version of Option #3 is already running, so that would take less time. We can tweak the engine to handle Option #1 with the least amount of time.
Jaesun
Senior Steward
Posts: 95
Joined: November 20th, 2007, 9:06 pm

Postby Jaesun » November 27th, 2007, 12:27 pm

Before I vote, the Option 3.. a Wizardry 8 like... Would that mean we would not be strategically moving/controlling the NPC's? We would just enter combat and then do Character 1: Cast/Fight/Do Nothing, Character 2: Cast/Fight/Do Nothing etc?

If you could archive say a Fallout/Arcanum like party turn based combat, i'd be inclined to like that.
Effidian
Steward
Posts: 67
Joined: November 23rd, 2007, 10:21 pm

Postby Effidian » November 27th, 2007, 12:32 pm

I'm going to abstain and just vote whatever is best for Basilisk. I don't mind any of the options listed. While I am itching for a good party based game, I'd be happy with another game in the same engine.
MaxEd
Initiate
Posts: 11
Joined: November 19th, 2007, 12:26 pm
Location: Moscow, Russia
Contact:

Postby MaxEd » November 27th, 2007, 12:39 pm

I say keep isometry. It's one of the features that made me but Eschalon - I like isometric view much more than any other option. As for time it would take to rewrite engine... Well, I prefer to wait for a game of my dreams, than get someting inferior earlier :)
User avatar
BasiliskWrangler
Site Admin
Posts: 3639
Joined: July 6th, 2006, 10:31 am
Location: The Grid
Contact:

Postby BasiliskWrangler » November 27th, 2007, 12:44 pm

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. ****
Vennor
Apprentice
Posts: 29
Joined: April 7th, 2007, 8:34 am

Postby Vennor » November 27th, 2007, 12:50 pm

I would say #1 but I'm not sure. I need time to think about it. It would be nice to see a co-op in Book II, but a party based singleplayer in Eschalon, err?

Maybe. But then the fighting system should be replaced with a new one.

What do you think about adding an action points based on speed and/or other statistics?

At the beggining (low speed) - 1 action point, what means 1 move or attack per round. But what when character will have about 5 or 6 APs? It would be too much.

Now, in Book I it works similar but it's based on that how fast will I click on the enemy or how fast will I attack and move back. If succeeded then I can attack and do a step and an slow enemy will only do one thing.

Uh, don't know if this is a good idea.

I hope someone will understand what I mean.

Edit: Hey, but Eschalon in view point other than isometric isn't Eschalon.

It's the same thing they did to Fallout 3 - FPP in Fallout? It's madness.
Aganazer
Apprentice
Posts: 25
Joined: November 20th, 2007, 10:32 am

Postby Aganazer » November 27th, 2007, 1:08 pm

Since the game is being marketed as a trilogy, I'd stay away from any drastic changes. At least until the trilogy is over. The current engine is really fantastic. There are so many interesting things that can be added that I don't see any reason to scrap it this early in the trilogy.
User avatar
PhilosophiX
Marshall
Posts: 144
Joined: September 16th, 2007, 4:13 am

Postby PhilosophiX » November 27th, 2007, 1:49 pm

I think I would also like to see you finish the trilogy... then you'd be able to go for the drastic changes with a new game.
What is a man, If his chief good and market of his time Be but to sleep and feed? a beast, no more. Sure, he that made us with such large discourse, Looking before and after, gave us not that capability and god-like reason to fust in us unused.
Vennor
Apprentice
Posts: 29
Joined: April 7th, 2007, 8:34 am

Postby Vennor » November 27th, 2007, 2:37 pm

Same for me. After some time of thinking about it I'd better stay with the Book I engine and work it out.

Add higher resolutions, maybe races or multiclassing, new items, et cetera and just don't make Book II a clone of Book I with other story.
vid
Senior Steward
Posts: 94
Joined: November 19th, 2007, 5:09 pm

Postby vid » November 27th, 2007, 2:55 pm

why would it need a complete engine rewrite to allow party members for book1?
User avatar
BasiliskWrangler
Site Admin
Posts: 3639
Joined: July 6th, 2006, 10:31 am
Location: The Grid
Contact:

Postby BasiliskWrangler » November 27th, 2007, 3:25 pm

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.

Return to “Eschalon: Book II”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron