The Drunken Lizard Pub

So just save one key for 'rarely used spells' then you don't have to re-bind it afterwards?

Actually what annoyed me was that if I forgot, I got default binding to '1' which was what I'd started using for the most common spell (heal). Middle of a fight, you cast heal, and get something useless instead.

GSV3MiaC wrote:So just save one key for 'rarely used spells' then you don't have to re-bind it afterwards?

That would require me to surrender one of my permanently bound spells. Sounds like replacing one problem with another to me.
Would it really be that hard to have a "Cast" button in the Spell Journal?

Actually what annoyed me was that if I forgot, I got default binding to '1' which was what I'd started using for the most common spell (heal). Middle of a fight, you cast heal, and get something useless instead.

Yeah, that's actually part of the problem. I don't find the method of binding spells very convenient in the first place, which makes the problem all the more aggravating.

Please don't make it party based! That will completely utterly 100% demolish any sense of immersion that I get from the game. Not to mention that it would be a technical hurdle that would be time consuming after all the bits are figured out.

Also, don't waste time on multiplayer. 99% of us are going to play it single player. Not only would it be wasted effort for most of us, it would break what is essentially a turn based game.

Improve on the strengths of the game. Book 1 was a little light on story. A lot of the equipment and spells seemed understated. That is perfect for sequels because it leaves so much room to grow. Remember what "The Dark Side of Xeen" was to the "Clouds of Xeen"? Everything was kicked up a notch. The gear, the locations, the story were all heavier and more impressive. The basic game engine didn't change, but "The Dark Side of Xeen" was a much more interesting and fun game.

Book 1 already has a fantastic interface. The only improvement I can think of would be to improve the spell interface. I like the idea of a hotbar that you can drag spells or items onto. Just bind the shortcut inventory slots to hotkeys and let us drag spells onto them.

The only 'cool' feature that might be fun would be destructible terrain. The engine already reminds me of X-Com. It would be cool to see some environmental effects of combat. Even without realtime destruction, it would be interesting to see scripted destruction. A town that you previously visited being sacked, forest fires, aftermath of a battle, etc. They could happen while you are away and triggered by story events.

I'd rather not import my old character. I'd rather make new mistakes in character development rather than deal with old mistakes. I'd rather my old character show up as some mysterious legendary retired hero.

Book 1 already has so many little tricks that I enjoyed. Nothing every felt repetitive, rehashed, or grindy. Keep that feeling. I'm sure the designer has plenty more tricks up his sleeve in mind for Book II so I'm not gonna sweat this one.

Aganazer wrote:Please don't make it party based! ..Also, don't waste time on multiplayer....I'd rather not import my old character. ...

I agree with everything Aganazer said, for similar reasons. It's just great to have an "old school" rpg game rather than another Diablo wannabe.

Only other thing would be a slightly larger gameplay screen area, therefore slightly smaller interface and message area.

Hope you guys have great success with this!
Greg

I'd also like to say, I would prefer if Book II is not party based. Just my opinion.

taspool wrote:[
Only other thing would be a slightly larger gameplay screen area, therefore slightly smaller interface and message area.

I want a MUCH larger gameplay area, but the other areas can stay large too, because it's about time we broke out of 800*600.

1920*1200 widescreen works good for me. 8>.

Jaesun wrote:I'd also like to say, I would prefer if Book II is not party based. Just my opinion.

It'll be good to have an option to choose whether you wanna go party or solo in book 2.

Maybe the experience points gained are split among a party of 4, while the player with the solo character get full exp?

Yeah, higher resolution and widescreen support will be good too.

GSV3MiaC wrote:

taspool wrote:[
Only other thing would be a slightly larger gameplay screen area, therefore slightly smaller interface and message area.

I want a MUCH larger gameplay area, but the other areas can stay large too, because it's about time we broke out of 800*600.

1920*1200 widescreen works good for me. 8>.

I'm sure Basilisk Wrangler said he'd go larger for the next one.

It's likely 1024x768 is as large as they would want to go. There are still a good number of people running monitors at that resolution (heck I was til I got a smashing deal on this imac), especially at the market these games are aimed at. 800x600 is a bit long in the tooth, and I suspect there are few users running at that low a Res anymore. Not that either is a big deal to me, my imac seems to run at 800x600 or 1024x768 fairly clearly either way. Bring on the isometric goodness!

How about finding your own Alchemy Ingredients - have sales in shops at minimum and find the rest in the wild also have slow respawn of ingredient

macdude22 wrote:It's likely 1024x768 is as large as they would want to go. There are still a good number of people running monitors at that resolution (heck I was til I got a smashing deal on this imac), especially at the market these games are aimed at. 800x600 is a bit long in the tooth, and I suspect there are few users running at that low a Res anymore. Not that either is a big deal to me, my imac seems to run at 800x600 or 1024x768 fairly clearly either way. Bring on the isometric goodness!

Yeh good point. I was about to mention that myself... I know their are a lot of people in the hulking great monitors camp, but laptop sales are set to exceed PC sales it would be very wise to have a game that could be played on laptops by avoiding going way over rez... and laptops rez is always a little way behind. Anyway at 1024x768 I can barely even see the pixels, I don't see how boosting it much more will help.

Aganazer wrote:Please don't make it party based! That will completely utterly 100% demolish any sense of immersion that I get from the game. Not to mention that it would be a technical hurdle that would be time consuming after all the bits are figured out.

Also, don't waste time on multiplayer. 99% of us are going to play it single player. Not only would it be wasted effort for most of us, it would break what is essentially a turn based game.

I agree on the multiplayer but I would say that you would have the same immersion if the party is just 1 character created that gets to walk the land with recruits or friends or an hired killer in disguise ?

That would allow quest to be "please let's go together down that cave to recover my stuff" rather than "could you please go fetch it for me"

my 2cents

I would like to see a little more detailed skills and perks like the fallout series, maybe unique skills for each class (back stabbing for rogues only, two weapon fighting for rangers only etc) And please do something about arrow prices I mean a gold piece for an arrow???!!??? fighting with spells is way better than using bow and arrows cause sometimes you hit but deal no dmg... BTW I think ranger is way way useless instead choose a fighter it is better...

PhilosophiX wrote:

macdude22 wrote:It's likely 1024x768 is as large as they would want to go.

<snip>

and laptops rez is always a little way behind. Anyway at 1024x768 I can barely even see the pixels, I don't see how boosting it much more will help.

I was joking about 1920*1200 (the 8>. is my smiley). However if you check you''ll find that laptop res, in pixels per inch, is usually ahead of NORMAL desktop monitors (I dunno why, but it is).

GSV3MiaC wrote:I was joking about 1920*1200 (the 8>. is my smiley). However if you check you''ll find that laptop res, in pixels per inch, is usually ahead of NORMAL desktop monitors (I dunno why, but it is).

It's just I remember having 1200 x 900 or something like that a decade ago on my first ever PC yet my laptop (bought 2 years ago) does max 1024 x 748.

That's no improvement in a decade. Okay it's primarily a business machine but still...


Anyway, I'm glad your kidding! Give me a heart attack.