D&D 5E What battle system would you prefere for Baldur's Gate 3?

[mcmillan]

2) Speculation. I don't think we have to argue that for most players the combat system is the most important part of the game.

I'd definitely say you need some kind of argument that the combat system is the most important part of a game for most people. Personally I'd put story elements as way more of a factor that affects my interest than how combat would be run,

 

[miggyG777]

So we compromise from the other direction and make the game TBwFF (Turn-Based with Fast Forward). Some TB games even allow you to skip an enemy's turn entirely. The enemy units still move and attack, but instead of watching them take their turns individually, the battlefield just jumps from point A (before enemy's turn) to point B (after enemy's turn) in a single frame. This cuts way down on the time that combat takes, and reduces the amount of time that the player is idle.

Combat would still have to be balanced around TB without FF. That means small groups of enemies and few trivial encounters.
Also, not sure if you are trolling. Don't like the combat system? Just skip that part of the game.

 

[slobster]

I'd definitely say you need some kind of argument that the combat system is the most important part of a game for most people. Personally I'd put story elements as way more of a factor that affects my interest than how combat would be run,

Strong agree with this one. I obviously want a combat system that is FUN and INTERESTING, but that could be turn based, real time, rock paper scissors related, whatever. I've played lots of fun combat systems, but for the most part the things I remember most about my favorite games are characters, plot, world, and the experience.

I'm gonna be honest, looking back and playing through original BG as I am currently doing, I love the game DESPITE the combat system, not because of it. Combat in that game is a kludgy, awkward affair that is sometimes fun and often frustrating or bad. But the rest of the game, the world and NPCs and the freedom it gives you to go out and have your adventure, all still stand up tremendously. Awkward pause/swing/miss for minutes on end on the other hand, feels REALLY dated and has to be endured to get to the fun stuff as opposed to being fun for itself.

IMO, of course.

 

[miggyG777]

I'd definitely say you need some kind of argument that the combat system is the most important part of a game for most people. Personally I'd put story elements as way more of a factor that affects my interest than how combat would be run,

I am basing my argument on the current engagement of all parties involved. 33k people voting on the PC Gamer Poll and discussions on almost every major (and minor) gaming site, seem like a good indicator to me, that combat is a pretty important part of Baldurs Gate.

 

[Gradine]

It's unlikely you're going to find a representative sample to accurately gauge player interest, whether on this board or especially on Twitter.

I cut my teeth on RTwP but between Pillars of Eternity, Torment: Tides and Numenera, and Divinity: Original Sin, I've turned into somebody who vastly prefers turn-based.

 

[Reynard]

It is roughly 50/50 on a 33k people poll by PCGamer.


Given this percentage. Changing the system from the original BGs is a risky stunt. If you had kept it the way it was, less people would've been agitated. Why?

1.) RTwP was the modus operandi
2.) it also catered to both audiences with the pause function.

Now we have a system that 46% of the players don't want. And I won't be able to fight 20 Gnolls at once anymore

It might not have been so much a question of "switching systems" as "findinga company willing to do it." Maybe WotC went to Obsidian first, but they passed because they have their own highly successful IP using the evolution of the BG system. If Obsidian had taken it on, it would certainly have looked more like Pillars. Given how successful Larian has been with their turn based games, it is no mystery why BG3 is turn based. But that doesn't mean WotC decided they wanted a turn based BG3 and courted Larian.

 

[MonkeezOnFire]

I tried playing Pillars of Eternity and I dropped it primarily because of it's real time with pause combat system. The default AI is terrible and required pausing often. As a result I found the game to be so very tedious and frustrating. Having to program my party is an extra layer of tedium.

From the previews so far I want the game to go more toward representing the tabletop game. Stuff like being shown the hit percentage of an attack when I normally wouldn't know an enemy's AC is weird to me.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Stuff like being shown the hit percentage of an attack when I normally wouldn't know an enemy's AC is weird to me.

This is fair. But I also suspect this will be something that you can turn on or off.

 

[Gladius Legis]

1) Straw-man argument. This is not an election, you are talking about customers and revenue here.

Learn what a straw man means. I addressed your false claim that it was "roughly 50/50" directly.

How about a little math? 54% of 33K is 17.8K. 46% of 33K is 15.2K.

That's a difference of roughly 2,600 in a 33K sample size. That is not at all close to "roughly 50/50."

Extend that difference proportionally into the millions and the sales figures into those millions x $60-ish per unit.

Also, sales are an election in a way. Ever hear of the phrase "voting with your dollars"?

2) Speculation. I don't think we have to argue that for most players the combat system is the most important part of the game.

You're speculating even more, and without any evidence, even anecdotal, to even begin to support your speculation.

3) RTwP caters to TB more than TB caters to RTwP.

Not even remotely accurate.