Exploration sucks

[soggie]

wimps =P ( I don't remember being able to walk faster in older games that fit this genre?)...The game is turn based, therefore speeding up the "walk" would be animation and game speed in general.

...Since the game moves one tile as you do, I don't see how adding a variable speed slider will break any of the current quests or create exploits in the existing quests.

The Ultima series of RPGs (most released during the '80s) had no walking animations so could run as fast as you could hit the keyboard.

I can sympathise with those who find walking a slow process but I would favour a "fastwalk" (no animation) option using, say, Shift or Ctrl + mouse button. This would make it easier to switch back to normal movement (for when that sprint lands you in an ambush) though it could also be disabled automatically when hostiles are nearby.

That could also be a possible solution too.

I am willing to volunteer to help code this one in if BW agrees.

[Evnissyen]

Sigh, the slow walking speed really is getting to me.

Honestly, this has been a major complaint since Book 1. BW didn't want to add a "run" option, but he compromised by speeding up the walk speed a little bit.

As for the "fast-walk": again: the walking speed has already been sped up, a fast-walk seems a little redundant. What's needed, I still think, is a run option, but a variable one.

To be honest: Although I'm not a huge fan of the walking walking walking thing (and again, still think there should be a run option), there are some things I can actually appreciate about the feature: 1. realism (a real Eschalon fetish, realism, as well as challenge, is really what sets Eschalon apart the most, I think, from other RPGs); 2. adds something to the atmosphere, like driving cross-country instead of taking the train. There's just something nice about being able to tangle yourself up in trees.

Of course, if I remember correctly: Baldur's Gate, for example, didn't allow you to run, either, nor did the Ultima series I don't think.

But... here's where I think a compromise can be made:

- When you're traveling unfamiliar territory, you can only walk. Partly because, well, you're in unfamiliar territory and need to watch where you're going all the time, and also because, you know, you're sort of mapping out the landscape at the same time. Can't draw maps too well while running, right?

- When you're traveling through familiar, charted (mapped) territory: then you can run. This makes sense both in regard to realism (notwithstanding the exhaustion factor: we can suspend our disbelief; exhaustion only takes away from the experience, in a way that hunger and thirst bars do not) and also in regard to playability. If you want to get to a specific place that you're familiar with but can't quicktravel to, and you only want to go there: you should be able to do so more quickly. You should be able to run.

- In tight spaces, like caves, caverns, catacombs, tunnels or 'dungeons': you can't run, you can only walk... perhaps your walking speed should even be slowed down a little, to be more realistic. It's really a little ridiculous to have your character running madly through narrow tunnels. (And here, also, I disagree fervently with Soggie's quick-exit idea. No reason why we shouldn't be forced to feel our way slowly all the way back to the entrance/exit. This isn't a dungeon-crawler, after all.)

[zeland]

Of course, if I remember correctly: Baldur's Gate, for example, didn't allow you to run, either, nor did the Ultima series I don't think.

Ultima 7 - The Black Gate & Serpents Isle had 3 movement speeds depending on how far away the pointer/cursor was from the Avatar.

Can't draw maps too well while running, right?

Make it that cartography doesn't work while running.

In tight spaces, like caves, caverns, catacombs, tunnels or 'dungeons': you can't run, you can only walk... perhaps your walking speed should even be slowed down a little, to be more realistic. It's really a little ridiculous to have your character running madly through narrow tunnels.

We could have a "Chance to Trip" check for every square that we run in tight places. Tripping and falling over causes minor injuries and damage to equipment.

[soggie]

Baldur's Gate allowed you to pan the camera to the destination, click there, and then you can sit back while your character finds his way to that destination. In Eschalon, you only move one tile per click, unless you hold the mouse key down. There's no pathfinding per say, and thus it requires constant attention, which is why it's so exhausting to walk through vast dungeons of emptiness.

Realism wise, I can't see why increasing the global speed of everything in the world is going to destroy any sense of realism. Eschalon does an effin good job of creating atmosphere in most places, and walking slowly isn't how the game does it.

But each to his own. I am getting used to the slow walking speed, and now that I'm at Edon about to cross to the end game area, doesn't really bother me that much anymore.

Well, that's until I get stuck with another facepalmingly long dungeon...

[CrazyBernie]

"W" = Autowalk.

Personally, I don't have any problems with the walking speed in Book II. When I go back to Book I, on the other hand... it feels like I'm crawling.

[Evnissyen]

Baldur's Gate allowed you to pan the camera to the destination, click there, and then you can sit back while your character finds his way to that destination.

True. This is also the case in Avernum 4-6, except that in those games: once you click on your destination your characters zoom there.

Obviously, calculating pathfinding would take some extra programming, but I think it might work well in B3, since it would necessarily only apply to mapped (traveled/known) territory.
After all: once you've tangled yourself up in a forest once . . . you sort of don't have much reason to do it a second time . . . unless there're some foes there whom you've yet failed to vanquish.

[Antigrav]

Clickable map. If you can click on it, that means you've already been there. For Book III, the map can be scalable, to allow for quick travel to other zones.

[ChrisHallett]

Speed slider = no need. And thats only my opinion But, those trees should be fixed, or try to fix.. They eat your PC.

My laptop doesn't have any problems with that though.

Intel Core 2 Duo 2.0Ghz
2 GB RAM
GeForce 8600M

I'm on a Core2Duo 1.8Ghz, 1GB RAM, GeForce 7300GT desktop, and this game runs beautifully fullscreened in DX9 with everything set to 'purty'. The little performance number at the top of the options box has only ever been 1. Screen full of trees, fighting off nearly a dozen dragonels, magic flying everywhere, no slowdown.

You'd have to be running this game on something very old (5 - 6+ years) for it to really slowdown...

[sillek]

2 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB RAM, GMA 950

For me, on the otherhand..a few trees on the screen and it takes roughly 5times longer to travel one screen length due to massive slowdown. I just completely avoid forested areas and exploring near/around them because it's not worth the frustration.

[Kreador Freeaxe]

2 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB RAM, GMA 950

For me, on the otherhand..a few trees on the screen and it takes roughly 5times longer to travel one screen length due to massive slowdown. I just completely avoid forested areas and exploring near/around them because it's not worth the frustration.

Check your graphic driver settings. Some drivers on some machines work fabulously, while on others they work like crap, so test the various options to see which on gets you the best performance.

[mrmike1949]

I downloaded the demos for both I and II and will NOT be buying either game because the walking is just TOO SLOW. It is unacceptable to not be able to RUN.

It's too bad, because the games sound very interesting, and there are so few good RPGs out there.

I went to the trouble of registering for these forums just to post this comment!

[KillingMoon]

I bought both Book I and II, but Book I is too slow for me to play and I'll never finish that game.
Book II is a little bit faster. It's still agonizing to see your character walking step by step, but I know about the opposite frustration as well: a character making itself look ridiculous because of the unrealistic speed with which it is hurdling over the screen.

I guess a more cleverly thought out map design would have done a lot for Book II. A map like the one with the abandoned zoo is very unfortunate. A map in central position like that needs to offer something in several stages of the game.
Also you could think of map tricks, like for example bridges that become passable after finishing certain quests, where the bridge is reducing travel times.

[Aldbeski]

i'm afraid you are making a big mistake by not finishing book 1 because in my opinion book 1 has a great plot and once you get into the story of the game you forget all about slow walking

[SpottedShroom]

I bought both Book I and II, but Book I is too slow for me to play and I'll never finish that game.
Book II is a little bit faster. It's still agonizing to see your character walking step by step, but I know about the opposite frustration as well: a character making itself look ridiculous because of the unrealistic speed with which it is hurdling over the screen.

I consciously know Book I has slower walking than Book II, but I honestly don't notice. I even went back and replayed Book I recently after several Book II games and it took me almost no time to adjust. Maybe I just don't mind that kind of thing much (or maybe it's less of an issue on Linux).

I guess a more cleverly thought out map design would have done a lot for Book II. A map like the one with the abandoned zoo is very unfortunate. A map in central position like that needs to offer something in several stages of the game.
Also you could think of map tricks, like for example bridges that become passable after finishing certain quests, where the bridge is reducing travel times.

I certainly agree it's a shame how sparse that particular map is, but I worry that adding bridges that only open at certain points would detract from realism. I'd support a modified quick travel system - once you've defeated all of the enemies on a map, you can quick travel to it. That would reduce a lot of walking and (I hope) not change the feel of the game too much.

[Kreador Freeaxe]

I guess a more cleverly thought out map design would have done a lot for Book II. A map like the one with the abandoned zoo is very unfortunate. A map in central position like that needs to offer something in several stages of the game.
Also you could think of map tricks, like for example bridges that become passable after finishing certain quests, where the bridge is reducing travel times.

I certainly agree it's a shame how sparse that particular map is, but I worry that adding bridges that only open at certain points would detract from realism. I'd support a modified quick travel system - once you've defeated all of the enemies on a map, you can quick travel to it. That would reduce a lot of walking and (I hope) not change the feel of the game too much.

Well, one or two places where you have something like a guarded bridge that needs to be cleared, bribed, or otherwise made passable would be interesting. Or a draw bridge that is broken and you have to go on a quest to find the part to repair it if you don't want to have to walk WAY around. These would be interesting additions in Book III.

Some of the speed issues, also, are when people unknowingly don't have the most efficient graphics driver running. Testing the different settings on the start menu can take the game from unplayable to enjoyable--particularly on the tree-heavy maps. And, some people just have a different tolerance for the speed or lack there of in movement. The walking doesn't bother me in the slightest, but people used to the constant rapid-fire action in a lot of newer games might be annoyed.