Solo v.s. Party

[screeg]

Effidian- your other two poll options, "build a party along the way" or "party optional, solo if desired" are not going to happen.

So to clarify, are party members going to be created solely at the start? Even if a party is required, a person can always choose to play solo, balancing or not.

Many people defeated TOEE solo. It just takes a helluva lot more work.

I voted party because any turn-based game grows exponentially in complexity and fun if you're controlling a whole party.

If EB2 turns out to be party based though, I think making sharper class distinctions would make sense. Right now there functionally aren't any classes. If your character started with 23 skill points instead of 20, there wouldn't be any need to pick a class at all. The fun of creating a party is in balancing a group with disparate skills.

[adamantyr]

A party would be great for Book II. Solo play is fun and easy, but I think Book II should be looked at as a "next step" in CRPG play, and introducing a party dynamic will greatly change how the game is played and increase complexity significantly.

The first thing is, with a party, it's important that specialization becomes more paramount with the class design. Your fighter type should be much better at his class function than the mage, enough to influence tactical decisions. At the same time, hybrid classes should still be viable. A lot of play testing will be needed to work out the kinks.

Also, monster AI will need to be changed. A turn-based tactical game should have smarter opponents. For example, smart monsters should be well aware that the healer class is the most dangerous, and once they identify him they should concentrate attacks on him. This should be balanced with other factors, such as aggression from damage. If monsters just hit whoever is nearest, combat will quickly become boring. Also, monsters should be savvy enough to know when the player is trying to draw single enemies out from a group to divide and conquer. (A common tactic when facing large groups of enemies.)

On that note, a party-based CRPG with tactical turn-based combat will slow down a lot. Unless you're fighting singletons, combat will take a lot longer than it did in solo play. If you have to fight as much as you do in Book I, you'll quickly get bored. Combat encounters will need to be reduced, or combat incentives (treasure, XP) increased to compensate.

Adamantyr

[sapper_astro]

I say stick with solo.

The entire engine would need rewriting, and how long would that take? Book 2 in 3 years time or something? Stick with solo say I. A party based game could be incorporated in the next saga if Bas decides to create one.

[Necromis]

I know it might be difficult. However, a suggestion to BW regarding adding to the party as you go along. You could have select NPCs that *join* you, or can join you along the way. This way the logic is able to be added into the code w/o over-whelming you.

Spoiler Below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

In Book I you can use the brother as an example. He could join you rather than have to die. Then stay with you for a set amount of time. The Mage in the tower could join you for a time, also. Set specific limits on the size of the party. Make the game built for this difficulty level and let the person decide to run with less at their risk. Makes it more challenging for those who want to go solo over party. Just my two cents.

[vid]

Then stay with you for a set amount of time. The Mage in the tower could join you for a time, also. Set specific limits on the size of the party. Make the game built for this difficulty level and let the person decide to run with less at their risk. Makes it more challenging for those who want to go solo over party. Just my two cents.

That would be a pretty sad excuse for a party, imo.

[HydroSqueegee]

I prefer solo, just for the fact i dont like to micromanage other characters.

But if a party system was implimented, I would like it to be from the get-go in the vein of Final Fantasy 1 where you could pick the class and names of all your party members. That alone gives it a good replay value.

"Hay, i beat book 2 with a fighter, divinist, rogue and elementalist. Now for a challenge i'll do fighter, divinist, divinist, divinist."

That would be fun.

[Necromis]

Vid. I am not saying the Party has to just be two. You and another. I am saying that it can be a group, but a group that the programers set from the outset. This way it is not a nightmare trying to figure out how to balance the attacks depending on how many party members. Just max it out for the highest you allow and then let the smaller parties figure out how they wanna do it. Makes it a challenge for the player but easier on the designer. After all if the tower has 20 goblins in one area. Then it should always have that many. Life is that way.

[vid]

Vid. I am not saying the Party has to just be two. You and another. I am saying that it can be a group, but a group that the programers set from the outset. This way it is not a nightmare trying to figure out how to balance the attacks depending on how many party members. Just max it out for the highest you allow and then let the smaller parties figure out how they wanna do it. Makes it a challenge for the player but easier on the designer. After all if the tower has 20 goblins in one area. Then it should always have that many. Life is that way.

Ah, i misunderstood you. I thought you wanted a party of followers, like in fallout, where you couldn´t really control any party member, but only give them "commands".

I agree to what you said above.

[Necromis]

No, this is more like one of the Lord of the Ring games. I cannot remember the title. But you are one guy and end up withh an elf helping you, then a dwarf, and Team up with Gandalf and some others. So at times you have more characters in the group. You control all their actions but they come and go according to the story line.

[vid]

In my dream rpg i would create 1-3 party members on the beginning (my lifelong friends), and i could let additional groupmembers join my party during the adventures. I could let them leave the party, but they would never leave me on their own will, because i generally want to stick to a familiarized party layout once i find the right people.

[taspool]

Solo.

[Rumtruffle]

i love solo games.

cant be bothered with all that micromanaging of different characters. one is enough for me.

[realmzmaster]

Actually, I am of two minds here. I like being able to build the uber character for solo play, but I also like building a party where each character brings something to the group and you can mold each one in a different way. Party based games allow you to create different interactions. Also if one party member dies you then have to find a way to resurrect them or continue on without their skills. This makes the role playing a little more fun. I like the Bauldur Gate and IceWind Dale games for this reason. The way each character was given a personality and bought different skills to the table. You could pick and choose from tha available characters as you journeyed. I also like being able to create the entire group all at once and nuture each one. I like both approaches, but the party based got my vote, but I can enjoy well done crpgs either way.

[CrazyBernie]

Anyone else amused by the fact that for the engine poll, the Solo option is in the lead, but in the Solo vs Party poll, the Party option is in the lead??

I went with Solo for the following reasons:

A)Keep engine development time to a minimum, so things like gameplay and story can be focused foremost.

B)This is supposed to be a Trilogy, and it might damage the fluidness of the story line if you just start throwing parties around.

Of course, it might be interesting if the party option was a gradual thing; i.e. gain a party member or two in Book II, then a party member or two more in book III. This would help keep the story flow going throughout the trilogy. If there was a way that the added party members ended up complimenting the player's initial character class choice, that'd be cool too. If you choose a fighter for a starting class, you'd run into a cleric/mage/rogue and so on.

[alpha]

Solo, only solo. No (half/full)-AI-driven trap-loving dying plain crazy dipshits allowed into business!