What type of engine for Book II
- BasiliskWrangler
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3825
- Joined: July 6th, 2006, 10:31 am
- Location: The Grid
- Contact:
What type of engine for Book II
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.
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.
- BasiliskWrangler
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3825
- Joined: July 6th, 2006, 10:31 am
- Location: The Grid
- Contact:
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.
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.
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.
If you could archive say a Fallout/Arcanum like party turn based combat, i'd be inclined to like that.
- BasiliskWrangler
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3825
- Joined: July 6th, 2006, 10:31 am
- Location: The Grid
- Contact:
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. ****
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 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.
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.
- PhilosophiX
- Marshall
- Posts: 144
- Joined: September 16th, 2007, 4:13 am
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.
- BasiliskWrangler
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3825
- Joined: July 6th, 2006, 10:31 am
- Location: The Grid
- Contact:
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.
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.