Just finished Book I - some criticism

[Kreador Freeaxe]

I find the argument about save/reload abuse a bit silly. If you don't like it, don't use it. You can play the game straight through without it. By adding layers of difficulty to the save and reload, you're not going to stop people from abusing it; you're just going to make them find another workaround (as realmzmaster noted with copying in a backed-up save folder). If somebody really wants to spend their time repeatedly doing save-open chest-decide if I like the contents-if not reload and try again, that's their waste of time.

Also, depending on how many of the side quests you go on, and killing various extra creatures, you can be anywhere from level 11 to level 20 when you complete the main quest. People who take the time to wander around and find extra stuff to do gather more experience.

My point with lock-picking is equally true of other skills. I like the way Basilisk does it because it allows each of us to play the game the way we like. You can argue that lock-picking is useless, to which I say, then don't put skill points in it. I like picking the locks rather than bashing everything. I find it a useful skill (and one with a definite difference between 0 and 1 point, as with no skill I simply can't even try to pick a lock). To me, that's the brilliance of Basilisk's design. It's open to allow each of us to play the way we like. I'm not a basher. I'm a player who likes to think his way through a situation.

With cartography, even one point in it makes it easier, as a player, to wander around at night or in the dark. You can track your progress on the mini-map, and with each successive level, that map improves to show more details. For a player such as myself who likes to wander around at night and sneak up on things, avoiding conflict until I'm in an advantageous position, this is extremely useful.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Overbalancing the game for the way one player likes to play makes it less playable for other players. Keep it as open as possible. None of us will find it perfect, but most of us will find it enjoyable and worth the time and money we spent on it.

[renkin]

My point with lock-picking is equally true of other skills. I like the way Basilisk does it because it allows each of us to play the game the way we like. You can argue that lock-picking is useless, to which I say, then don't put skill points in it. I like picking the locks rather than bashing everything. I find it a useful skill (and one with a definite difference between 0 and 1 point, as with no skill I simply can't even try to pick a lock). To me, that's the brilliance of Basilisk's design. It's open to allow each of us to play the way we like. I'm not a basher. I'm a player who likes to think his way through a situation.

That's all fine, but wouldn't you prefer if lockpicking wasn't only a flavor skill but also a skill that gives you access to stuff other players don't have access to? Comparable to how a player with sword skill can use weapons a player with axe skills can't, and vice versa, and a master alchemist in practice can get fancier equipment than other players.

About save/load abuse, in a way I agree with you. What I'm saying is basically, either 1) don't have save/load mechanics that in an obvious way allows abuse/retrying skills or 2) don't have skills that succeed or fail purely based on chance. Alchemy is an example of a skill that's not purely based on chance (since you get better potion levels for higher skill level).

Since 1) is hard to achieve, I'd probably go for 2).

In the end, it's up to the developers of course. I just want to share my thoughts.

[Jinx]

Regarding the concept of "making skills matter", I do agree that it's nice when every skill begs you to choose it. I couldn't help but feel that a few of the available skills were fun from only a role-playing aspect, but the min/maxer would never pick them. One suggestion would be to make some skills such as Spot Hidden max out at a much lower number. For example, at 5 points (so 9 pts spent total, unless you have +skill gear), Spot Hidden is maxed. That makes choosing it more alluring and essentially makes those spent skill points weigh more. In other words, more bang for your buck. Other skills could max out at 15 such as Cartography. And perhaps others at 30. Overall though, I thought the skills choices were well designed and leveling up was always a very difficult decision

Regarding the save/load concept, since the dawn of time, RPGs have been exploitable to those so inclined via hex editors. Even Diablo (still) has a large hacking community that trades hacked items (for non battle.net play). However, ultimately the decision to exploit a game comes from the player. If it's more fun to exploit a chest to get better loot, do it. Or, if it's more fun to take what the dice give you, do that. I'm in full support of the way it works now.

[gaxx]

My major criticism is the PC's movement speed.

I understand the whole turn based aspect, but, there must be something, like adjust the game speed or similar that could be done to speed it up.

Just not a fan of walking for 5 minutes to get to the other side of the map or back to town.

[Evnissyen]

Only 20%? Better 50%, if there's no "run" option. But best of there's a run option.

[MegaHassan]

It would be better if we could adjust the overall GAME speed from the menu. I like the default game speed, and have no problems with it. So what if it is slow? You have to walk a thousand miles to get from point A to point B in every RPG.

[Getharn]

This is a big thread with a lot of points raised - here are some comments on them, in case anybody finds them interesting.

Firstly, resting - it's always going to be tough to balance. My personal feeling is that players should expect to achieve a single dungeon crawl without resting. You can't expect to be able to camp safely for eight hours in a goblin-infested cavern, unless you take serious measures to hide yourself, or barricade the door of a room, or similar. One way to achieve this is just to have certain areas of tiles nominated as "safe" resting areas - this doesn't mean there won't be a random encounter, but it's not even possible to attempt to camp in areas which aren't safe.

Personally, I'd split resting into four-hour chunks, and do a test for random encounters based on the "risk factor" of the current area each time. Each chunk would restore the full four hours' worth if uninterrupted, but almost nothing if not. Perhaps restoration of HP without resting should be conditional on having points in the survival skill, and restoration of mana without resting conditional on the meditation skill.

Also, skills like hide in shadows and survival could increase the chances that the player can conceal their camp site, and hence decrease the chances of random encounters. This is an easy way to make these skills more valuable (though it sounds like hide in shadows might not need it - I've not taken this one myself so far, so I can't tell).

Lock-picking is another tricky one. As it stands in Book I, I found that sometimes weapons used to bash doors and chests did break, and that was a good thing. I think perhaps it could happen rather faster, but be a more gradual process - so weapons rapidly acquire a damage penalty (sword go blunt, maces bend their spikes, cudgels fracture, etc.), but then take much longer to actually break. This gives players fair warning that they're not doing their weapons any good. I would also add the chance for random encounters for prolonged bashing sessions - you can't spend half an hour trying to smash a door down in a dungeon or town without attracting some kind of attention.

Another idea might be to combine lock-picking and skulduggery into one skill, since they're in some sense related to each other - this might help make the combined skill more valuable for people to invest significant amount of points into.

Finally, on the subject of shields, I'm not quite sure of the benefit of that skill at the moment. Putting points into heavy armour seems to incease my damage reduction, but putting points into shields doesn't seem to do a lot. Perhaps it enhances the armour value the shield gives you? Or have I simply not put enough points in to see its effect on damage reduction yet?

Either way, if the shields skill needs to be made a bit more useful (and I'm not sure whether it does, since I'm not sure of the mechanics behind it), perhaps use of a shield could offer a small chance to parry each incoming blow, with that chance increasing as points are put into shields. A successful parry could negate (or halve) the physical damage of an incoming blow. So in a sense it's similar to dodge, but without the counter-attack bonus. This would make even a poor quality shield quite useful for skilled characters.

Phew, another long post. Sorry guys, hope I'm not boring you too much!

[CrazyBernie]

Lock-picking is another tricky one. As it stands in Book I, I found that sometimes weapons used to bash doors and chests did break, and that was a good thing. I think perhaps it could happen rather faster, but be a more gradual process - so weapons rapidly acquire a damage penalty (sword go blunt, maces bend their spikes, cudgels fracture, etc.), but then take much longer to actually break. This gives players fair warning that they're not doing their weapons any good. I would also add the chance for random encounters for prolonged bashing sessions - you can't spend half an hour trying to smash a door down in a dungeon or town without attracting some kind of attention.

Another idea might be to combine lock-picking and skulduggery into one skill, since they're in some sense related to each other - this might help make the combined skill more valuable for people to invest significant amount of points into.

So you're saying that picking the lock to your apartment door and disabling the IED attached to it are somehow a related skill??

I think some weapons shouldn't be as susceptible to damage from bashing stuff. I've done quite a bit of demolition back when I used to help my father and grandfather build houses... I never once broke a hammer, sledge, crowbar, or axe in the process. I can understand breaking a sword on a door, that's just foolishness... but a hammer or an axe?? I think the material that the door/chest/barrel is made of should be compared to the weapon that's being used. An axe on a barrel shouldn't affect the axe, but a sword on a metal reinforced chest is asking for trouble.

[IJBall]

I think some weapons shouldn't be as susceptible to damage from bashing stuff. I've done quite a bit of demolition back when I used to help my father and grandfather build houses... I never once broke a hammer, sledge, crowbar, or axe in the process. I can understand breaking a sword on a door, that's just foolishness... but a hammer or an axe?? I think the material that the door/chest/barrel is made of should be compared to the weapon that's being used. An axe on a barrel shouldn't affect the axe, but a sword on a metal reinforced chest is asking for trouble.

I agree.

I often use the Steel Axe to bash open sealed barrels, and I was thinking the other day that it would be ridiculous if weapons like that started breaking in Book II when bashing barrels.

I can see such weapons getting "duller", and thus less effective in combat.

But swords, axes, maces, etc. made out of steel and such shouldn't be susceptible to "breaking" per se.

[BasiliskWrangler]

Yes...Book II weapon deterioration function as you would expect: Hammers and Axes are hardly damaged at all when used for bashing; swords are damaged much more quickly if used to bash; daggers are damaged very quickly. Steel banded doors and heavy chests are more destructive to weapons than normal doors or basic chests.

However, this is offset by how skilled you are in each weapon category- the more skill you possess, the slower the deterioration rate is for the weapon you are using. Furthermore, this is all nullified if you disable weapon/armor deterioration in the game rules, at the start of the game.

[AK_Marty]

Furthermore, this is all nullified if you disable weapon/armor deterioration in the game rules, at the start of the game.

BW are you going to post a list of the adjustable game rules? It sounds like there are quite a few options to choose from in Book II, meaning LOADS of replay value!!

[Getharn]

Hammers and Axes are hardly damaged at all when used for bashing; swords are damaged much more quickly if used to bash; daggers are damaged very quickly.

My rough impression was that was how Book I already worked, though I've drawn that conclusion based on a very small sample size. Upon finding weapons occasionally broke when bashing a chest, I immediately switched to weapons in which I wasn't skilled (bludgeoning), so perhaps it's just luck that I found they lasted longer than swords, on the basis that I haven't ended up testing any more swords (not wanting to waste them).

So you're saying that picking the lock to your apartment door and disabling the IED attached to it are somehow a related skill?

I tend to come at things from a gameplay balance perspective, and then worry about realism as a sort of justification for decisions made for balance reasons. I believe the sort of skills used to pick locks and disarm traps in a pseudo-medieval fantasy setting are not a million miles distant. This is especially true since the same sorts of characters practice them, and hence they would be learned around the same time.

Is wielding a morning star in any way similar to a quarterstaff? I don't think so, yet they are the same skill. However, that's fine from a gameplay balance point of view - drawing too many distinctions would make warriors needlessly fussy to play. I know, I still bear the scars of 2nd edition AD&D.

If there's no gameplay balance reason to combine lock picking and skulduggery, then that's a separate issue. My feeling was that they were both skills that might not be so powerful in a combat-heavy RPG, and hence it might make rogue-tending characters a little more playable to combine them. It was only a suggestion after all.