What type of engine for Book II

Here's where all things related to Book II are being discussed!

What type fo engine for Book II

Option #1
136
66%
Option #2
43
21%
Option #3
26
13%
 
Total votes : 205

What type of engine for Book II

Postby BasiliskWrangler » Tue Nov 27, 2007 11:41 am

I wasn't quite ready to do this poll yet, but I figured since the other one was posted, I'd put this one up as well. Okay, so we have this Book I engine. We could do several things for Book II, depending on the party/solo poll...

1) Keep the game solo and keep Book I's engine. We'll just modify it for higher resolutions and new features.

2) Go with a party, but completely overhaul Book I's engine because we can't do party-based gaming on this engine. This would pretty much mean re-writing the engine, but we stay isometric like Book I.

3) Go with a party, but take the engine in a radical new direction: an engine that we have been developing that would be similar to Wizardry 8, with hints of Dungeon Master / Eye of the Beholder.
Last edited by BasiliskWrangler on Wed Apr 23, 2008 4:32 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
BasiliskWrangler
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3582
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 10:31 am
Location: The Basilisk's Lair

Postby vid » Tue Nov 27, 2007 11:54 am

i voted #2 ( just because of party support, the gfx and everything else, technic wise could stay), but i would LOVE to see an dungeonmaster clone from you, maybe for book3?
vid
Senior Steward
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 5:09 pm

Postby macdude22 » Tue Nov 27, 2007 11:55 am

I like party based (4ish players) my self. I'm not against the solo style, in fact I find them pretty fun but there is something about playing as a rag tag group of adventures on the road to riches.
User avatar
macdude22
Council Member
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 9:20 pm

Postby Effidian » Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:02 pm

What time is involved with each option? While I want party based, if I had to wait 4 years for a party based Book II but could get a solo Book II in 1 year, then I'd vote for solo. :)
Effidian
Steward
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 10:21 pm

Postby BasiliskWrangler » Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:13 pm

Option #2 would take the longest amount of development simply because it is the least of the developed engines so far. It would almost be like writing a new engine form the ground up.

A very rough version of Option #3 is already running, so that would take less time. We can tweak the engine to handle Option #1 with the least amount of time.
User avatar
BasiliskWrangler
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3582
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 10:31 am
Location: The Basilisk's Lair

Postby Jaesun » Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:27 pm

Before I vote, the Option 3.. a Wizardry 8 like... Would that mean we would not be strategically moving/controlling the NPC's? We would just enter combat and then do Character 1: Cast/Fight/Do Nothing, Character 2: Cast/Fight/Do Nothing etc?

If you could archive say a Fallout/Arcanum like party turn based combat, i'd be inclined to like that.
Jaesun
Senior Steward
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 9:06 pm

Postby Effidian » Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:32 pm

I'm going to abstain and just vote whatever is best for Basilisk. I don't mind any of the options listed. While I am itching for a good party based game, I'd be happy with another game in the same engine.
Effidian
Steward
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 10:21 pm

Postby MaxEd » Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:39 pm

I say keep isometry. It's one of the features that made me but Eschalon - I like isometric view much more than any other option. As for time it would take to rewrite engine... Well, I prefer to wait for a game of my dreams, than get someting inferior earlier :)
MaxEd
Initiate
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:26 pm
Location: Moscow, Russia

Postby BasiliskWrangler » Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:44 pm

Jaesun:

Well, that's a good question because we don't have combat set up at all yet. I imagine Option #3 to be sort of a phase-type attack where everyone has a default action each combat round, and when you click the combat button, the round is played out according to initiative and everyone's default actions.

For example, you could make the Ranger in your party:
> Always attack what Party Leader is attacking.
> Always attack most powerful creature.
> Always attack creature closest to death.
> Always attack most distant target

Or of course, you could assign a special one-round action such as:
> Special Attack
> Use object
> Cast spell
> Defend self
> Defend party member

Something like this is what I envision.

****Please remember this is very, very early guesses as to how combat might be performed. ****
User avatar
BasiliskWrangler
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3582
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 10:31 am
Location: The Basilisk's Lair

Postby Vennor » Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:50 pm

I would say #1 but I'm not sure. I need time to think about it. It would be nice to see a co-op in Book II, but a party based singleplayer in Eschalon, err?

Maybe. But then the fighting system should be replaced with a new one.

What do you think about adding an action points based on speed and/or other statistics?

At the beggining (low speed) - 1 action point, what means 1 move or attack per round. But what when character will have about 5 or 6 APs? It would be too much.

Now, in Book I it works similar but it's based on that how fast will I click on the enemy or how fast will I attack and move back. If succeeded then I can attack and do a step and an slow enemy will only do one thing.

Uh, don't know if this is a good idea.

I hope someone will understand what I mean.

Edit: Hey, but Eschalon in view point other than isometric isn't Eschalon.

It's the same thing they did to Fallout 3 - FPP in Fallout? It's madness.
Vennor
Apprentice
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 8:34 am

Postby Aganazer » Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:08 pm

Since the game is being marketed as a trilogy, I'd stay away from any drastic changes. At least until the trilogy is over. The current engine is really fantastic. There are so many interesting things that can be added that I don't see any reason to scrap it this early in the trilogy.
Aganazer
Apprentice
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:32 am

Postby PhilosophiX » Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:49 pm

I think I would also like to see you finish the trilogy... then you'd be able to go for the drastic changes with a new game.
What is a man, If his chief good and market of his time Be but to sleep and feed? a beast, no more. Sure, he that made us with such large discourse, Looking before and after, gave us not that capability and god-like reason to fust in us unused.
User avatar
PhilosophiX
Marshall
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:13 am

Postby Vennor » Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:37 pm

Same for me. After some time of thinking about it I'd better stay with the Book I engine and work it out.

Add higher resolutions, maybe races or multiclassing, new items, et cetera and just don't make Book II a clone of Book I with other story.
Vennor
Apprentice
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 8:34 am

Postby vid » Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:55 pm

why would it need a complete engine rewrite to allow party members for book1?
vid
Senior Steward
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 5:09 pm

Postby BasiliskWrangler » Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:25 pm

vid: Think of the way Book I handles turns. To deal with a party, we need to change over to a phased, action-point system. Unless the party members are completely autonomous (no one wants that) there has to be a functional way for you to control everyone.

To achieve this, everything but the way we draw the tiles to the screen will have to be replaced. The combat engine needs completely rebuilt from the ground up. The travel and movement system needs replaced. Inventory and character stat management needs drastically updated, etc., etc.
User avatar
BasiliskWrangler
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3582
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 10:31 am
Location: The Basilisk's Lair

Next

Return to Eschalon: Book II

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 4 guests

cron