1123 replies to this topic

[William Imm]

Which is why it'd be great if Beamdog included some mods under a separate menu for optional add-ons in BGEE, the way they do it in Civilization and other games. But apparently they're not interested in that.

We have no evidence of that just now, that I know of

Actually, the main guy involved in this liked the idea, actually. I know this because of a email to him (yes, I can email him directly. I also happen to have access to the Reddit group that they are using).

[Andrea C.]

Actually, the main guy involved in this liked the idea, actually. I know this because of a email to him (yes, I can email him directly. I also happen to have access to the Reddit group that they are using).

You wouldn't happen to know anything about BG1 paperdolls and character animations in BGEE with dual-wielding capabilities, would you? Or new animations for existing monsters?

[William Imm]

Apparently, someone hasen't even mentioned the idea - but I am just so that they know - they are not really thinking about the modding community much.

[Andrea C.]

Apparently, someone hasen't even mentioned the idea - but I am just so that they know

Thanks

Edited by Andrea C., 29 March 2012 - 06:10 AM.

[Kaeloree]

They're not including mods in the main game (at least NPC mods), but they are definitely considering mods through other avenues from what I understand.

[phordicus]

Considering how "open" they seem, what with Twitter and trying to appeal to the purists, why is all this coming through back channels? Is there some reason T can't just come out and say, "We like several mods and if we don't specifically include or at least duplicate them, we'll make sure you can use them."

This I-know-a-guy-in-the-biz schtick is getting a bit silly.

Edited by phordicus, 29 March 2012 - 04:48 PM.

[Stabwound]

It's sad that it seems as though the PC version is falling to the wayside in favour of marketing the game to iPad users. I'm not a modder but a fan of the game, and it's obvious to me how much could be done to better the game with access to the source code. It seems as though this isn't as "enhanced" a version of the game as I first thought it would be; recent screenshots look like BGT running on GemRB...

There is so much that could be fixed with the UI for one thing. While it's serviceable, there are a lot of annoyances, especially regarding bags and the spell-casting menu. Recent comments lead me to believe that this isn't going to be addressed at all.

The game could be made easier to use with mods, with a system like William Imm proposed. Is that going to happen? I doubt it.

At first I was lead to believe that this was going to be an "HD" facelift of the game. I didn't expect the backgrounds to be redone, but I thought perhaps the character sprites would be. It doesn't look like that's happening, either. Although the existing widescreen mod is great, I also thought that the "EE" version might make high resolutions work differently by upscaling the visuals instead of making everything tiny, not that it's a huge deal. Instead, all it seems to do, judging by recent screenshots, is do the same thing the Widescreen Mod does, except center the skill bar at the bottom.

As far as I'm concerned, when you concisder the above and since this will likely not be compatible like BGT or with any of the BGT fixes or mods, I have no real interest in it.

[William Imm]

Considering how "open" they seem, what with Twitter and trying to appeal to the purists, why is all this coming through back channels? Is there some reason T can't just come out and say, "We like several mods and if we don't specifically include or at least duplicate them, we'll make sure you can use them."

This I-know-a-guy-in-the-biz schtick is getting a bit silly.

I can't speak for Trent, but I can speak for the Reddit group (http://www.reddit.co...sOfBaldursGate/, if and when it gets public). Apparently, some ideas brought up already are:

* Nerfing Rest (hotly debated)
* More Elaborate Quests (one of the key people says he wants to include UB and "Banter Packs mods for BG1" - presumably BG1NPC mod.
* Allow equing directly a two-handed weapon in the invetory while having a shield on..
* Ability info screen
* Improving pathfinding
* A Brazillian Portuguese translation! (by one of the key people)
* Have summoned creatures be able to leave the area (not sure about that one)
* Bugfixing plently
* Nerf two-weapon fighting style
* Dynamic terrian/areas
* More unique items (like adding more exotic weapons to BG1)
* Fixing a bug with day/night tilesets
* Changing some NPCs location to be more convenient/be available early.
* BG1 NPC rebalancing
* Nerf thief traps
* Enhanced graphics
* KELSEY INCLUDED (may or may not be - I think he should be optional)
* A monk NPC for the game
* New classes/kits
* Atmospheric effects
* Having Slayer form improve over time.

That's not all of them - my ideas were Android support (much desired for me - can't wait to play it on my ASUS Transformer), the afromentioned addon manager, ToBEx, BG2 Fixpack, Ascension, and Wheels included by default, and using BG1 paperdolls/charcater animations as the default as well.

(oh - cloud saving per Trent Oster. We're doomed.)

[phordicus]

Huh. Thanks for that info!

Some of that is far outside the bounds of enhancing. Much of it is already done by mods.

Allow equing directly a two-handed weapon in the invetory while having a shield on = gui & convenience fix
Nerf two-weapon fighting style = what does this even mean? thac0 penalties for heavy/unwieldy weapons?

If it's obvious and uncontroversial, only the OC type could complain, but many of those should fall squarely in the "optional" category.

I've forgotten why I'm supposed to be interested in this.

Really, the only thing that excites me is "dynamic terrain". I've long thought about using area-sized triggers to change conditions, but it's both clunky and glitchy.

Asc64's absence from SHS the last month has moved from suspicious to solved.

Edited by phordicus, 29 March 2012 - 06:44 PM.

[Tempest]

I really, really hope Kelsey isn't in BG+. Or if he is, make him completely optional.

[William Imm]

Nerf two-weapon fighting style = what does this even mean? thac0 penalties for heavy/unwieldy weapons?

Basically, instead of giving 1 extra APR, the suggester wants to make it 1/2 APR.

Asc64's absence from SHS the last month has moved from suspicious to solved.

OT: How is it solved?

I really, really hope Kelsey isn't in BG+. Or if he is, make him completely optional.

Yea - just make him a optional DLC - if anything.

[phordicus]

Basically, instead of giving 1 extra APR, the suggester wants to make it 1/2 APR.

That's fine and all but not the point. It's a non-trivial rules change even if their solution seems reasonable. I'd argue heavily that it is not and would try my best to keep that suggester from having any input at all, but I'm not going to argue via proxy.

Also, why do you think they should include ToBEx? I thought the point of them having the source code meant that they don't have to use dll injection.

(OT: His last visit was the day before their site went live. Conspiracy!)

Edited by phordicus, 29 March 2012 - 09:22 PM.

[Andrea C.]

Also, why do you think they should include ToBEx? I thought the point of them having the source code meant that they don't have to use dll injection.

I think it means they want to include the contents of ToBEx, rather than the method with which they are implemented. With the source code, they could make all the ToBEx stuff canon without resorting to "dll injection".

recent screenshots look like BGT running on GemRB...

Worry not, for Trent Oster had already stated multiple times that those screenshot do not portray the final enhanced graphics of BGEE. They have several graphical enhancements they want to implement and nothing to show yet. Oh, he also said to expect a major UI overhaul

Considering how "open" they seem, what with Twitter and trying to appeal to the purists, why is all this coming through back channels? Is there some reason T can't just come out and say, "We like several mods and if we don't specifically include or at least duplicate them, we'll make sure you can use them."

I believe Trent said something like that on his Twitter account, I'm just too lazy to dig it. He even said that if a mod exploits a bug that is fixed in BGEE, they are willing to work with the modder to find a different implementation (not saying that mods usually rely on bugs to work, as they actually tend to fix them - just saying that their "openness" has indeed been used to state that mod compatibility is being willingly pursued).

* More Elaborate Quests (one of the key people says he wants to include UB and "Banter Packs mods for BG1" - presumably BG1NPC mod.
* Allow equing directly a two-handed weapon in the invetory while having a shield on..
* Ability info screen
* Improving pathfinding
* Have summoned creatures be able to leave the area (not sure about that one)
* Bugfixing plently
* Dynamic terrian/areas
* More unique items (like adding more exotic weapons to BG1)
* Fixing a bug with day/night tilesets
* Enhanced graphics
* New classes/kits
* Having Slayer form improve over time.

Oster said multiple times that UI and multiplayer are a priority, so I find it wierd to not see them on the list. Nevertheless, I would welcome all of the above, although I'm not quite sure what they mean with "dynamic terrain/areas". Non-static shadows would be a great graphical enhancement - though again, I can't consider the graphics to be "enhanced" if they keep using BG2 paperdolls and animations, or if BAMs are still limited to 256 colors. The ability to zoom in would also be a great addition, though it would be even better if everything in game was made to scale and adapt to resolution being used (including backgrounds, animations and BAMs).

* Changing some NPCs location to be more convenient/be available early.
* Atmospheric effects
* BG1 NPC rebalancing
* KELSEY INCLUDED (may or may not be - I think he should be optional)
* A monk NPC for the game

These leave me perplexed. The game already features atmospheric effects (well, rain and snow at any rate) so either they plan on adding more (like fog, falling leaves in autumn, and so on...) or they just want to make them more frequent - which is fine and all but a pretty minor/trivial thing to waste one's time on.

Also not sure what they mean with "NPC rebalancing". Of course several BG1 NPCs will have to be modified to take ToB features into account so maybe that is it.

They said there's going to be just one new NPC. I guessed it would be a monk, and that's fine but either it's Kelsey or a brand new one; if they put both into the game that's two new NPCs of which one is not so new, but rather someone else's work. Making it canon wouldn't be a nice move. They should develop their own NPCs and let modders have their own, which players can freely install at their leisure.

I thank you once again for mentioning BG1 paperdolls and animations, as that's one of my top priorities. It wouldn't be bad to have additional animations for existing monsters to add some variety, but IA can take care of that if compatibility is retained (the point is moot as it depends on whether BGEE graphics are made to actually scale with resolution; in which case, IA may require a serious overhaul to comply - but I'm no modder, so I'm just speculating).

[Miloch]

* KELSEY INCLUDED (may or may not be - I think he should be optional)
* Having Slayer form improve over time.
...BG2 Fixpack, Ascension, and Wheels included by default

None of that pertains to BG1. How exactly would it be included in a BGEE, or are these people already talking about a hypothetical BG2EE? First things first, I think. Is this an actual discussion by the developers or just a group of "interested parties" (i.e. "Friends of Baldur's Gate")? If the latter, it is not much different from the sort of rampant speculation occurring in this thread and others.

[phordicus]

IIRC, and I do, Trent said if BG does well, they'll do BG2, and both of them doing well is a requirement to be able to do BG3. This sounds exactly like vaporware talk.

If those ss aren't the real deal, then why release them? Who gives a shit you can rip off current mods and move some gui buttons?

Where's the pedigree? Has anyone on the dev team produced one mod in 10+ years? (NPC mods don't count.)

If you want to build up hype and expectations, then you get questions like these.

[William Imm]

* KELSEY INCLUDED (may or may not be - I think he should be optional)
* Having Slayer form improve over time.
...BG2 Fixpack, Ascension, and Wheels included by default

None of that pertains to BG1. How exactly would it be included in a BGEE, or are these people already talking about a hypothetical BG2EE? First things first, I think. Is this an actual discussion by the developers or just a group of "interested parties" (i.e. "Friends of Baldur's Gate")? If the latter, it is not much different from the sort of rampant speculation occurring in this thread and others.

Well, the sub Reddit I'm is a place to discuss fixes and updates to BGEE - so some of the stuff may not be included, some of it will. I hope my ideas make it in to BGEE, mainly.

[freche]

Would be nice if they could add a few skills to fighters, as it is they are just auto attack 24/7. Once you get HLA it's Whirlwind followed by more auto attacks.

Even if it's only 1 skill / style it would be wonderful, something like Shield Bash if you use a shield, Cleave/Sweep with a two-hander and something for dual-wielding.

[Zireael]

The list of stuff to be done looks nice, but these are just mostly just minor fixes. I hope that there will be improving on paperdolls and that the UI will be really redone.

I'm all for atmospheric effects and active terrain.

Also, doesn't "atmospheric effects" mean stuff like people reacting to what you do and doing normal, everyday stuff?

[Almateria]

active terrain.

Havok or bust