@Bhryaen: I think we're agreed then that as long as the goddamn AOs are in there somewhere, it doesn't matter.
Not at all agreed. I think instead they should leave out all the goddamn AOs and only include the fantabulous AOs, and furthermore... oh, OK, true enough. :-P
Looking over the list of AO settings you and I have collectively been looking for (you don't have to agree with them all, of course, just making a list) this appears to be the delineation of the two types:
GAME START DEPENDENT 1. Nerf Major Game Items 2. Item Randomizer (ok, I tried to univeralize it by calling it "Relocator," but still...) 3. ** Enemies Pre-Buff Capacity (would require plenty of scripting built-in for spellcasters based on enemy spells available, caster level, etc.,; it wouldn't necessarily have to be reversed if loading a game after encountering pre-buffed spellcasters, but the effort would indeed require a lot of spellcasters to be accounted for in advance)
GAME LOAD DEPENDENT ONLY: i.e,. ALTERABLE MID-GAME WITH MINIMAL TO NO EXTRA DEV WORK 1. Merchant Prices (plus "Hard Times" increase during iron shortage) 2. Resting Risk Enhancement 3. Resting Area Scope 4. * Wearing Multiple Same-Effect Items (still has to do something about wearing multiple same-effect items at moment of change, of course- i.e., auto-removing to inventory or auto-dropping, having to account and script for either...) 5. AI Improvements (though the scope of this is likely too much to implement regardless of how it might be delineated) 6. Blackpixelation of Unexplored Terrain Auto-Removal (actually, come to think of it, this could work without any extra work beyond the basics of implementation because the pixels changed from black to, well, actual remain a constant) 7. Trap/ Lock XP Adjustment 8. Enemy HP Roll Allotment 9. ** Monster enhancement (though they'd have to add scripts to monster abilities or else add new monsters to script in instead) 10. ** Enemy Kill XP Allotment (depends on how kill XP is determined, but it's fortunately a fixed XP amount in 2E DnD after all)
* Arguably Game-Start Dependent Instead ** Hasn't been presented yet as a single tweak request
So actually I was being a bit pessimistic regarding how many of the AOs were weighing into making them CC-based. Such a relatively small list too for all the bloody work it potentially involves...
Also settings is fine
:-) Cheers!
but my only concern with that is that it might be too buried!! I think in any case there needs to be some sort of dialogue to alert players that AOs are located there.
>:-( The labeling of the AO Tab as "ADVANCED OPTIONS" isn't sufficient right there in the regular Settings tabs only two clicks away from being in-game? At the very least it's available at any time in-game, something which the CC and BGConfig aren't, of course. Wait, reversing your stance to oppose from the exact contrary position is just one of your devious cockblocker tactics, isn't it? :-P
I'd personally like to see BG:EE be a flagship title that shows other RPG's how its done, in every area that doesn't require a big budget, picking the best brains that are available. This particular idea has great potential: to be an innovation or a major convoluted mess.
My first impression of an 'advanced options menu' is negative but it depends on what would go into it. I think if there were a way to have various name-able presets (including some that the game ships with) might be handy. Maybe even have a tree-like interface of packaged, named 'preconfigurations', where a parent preconfiguration can be inherited by a child preconfig. Maybe this could be the fundamentals of a 'layered' configuration system, with different levels of exposure. Each tier up represents a simplification and consolidation of the layer below. Some measure of these fundamental workings would be hidden.
My wariness is that I don't want to rely on a single 'advanced' menu alone. I like to be able to say "I conquered the game on X difficulty" and not "I beat the game with the following 87 of the 144 advanced options toggled". If options are just shoved in a heap it just loses all meaning and nobody could keep track of it. You can say "it's only meant for such-and-such a hardcore player" but I don't even count myself on that group if it just means sifting through a ton of options.
I don't mind the idea but I hope there is some middle found between a "customize absolutely everything" submenu (which should be VERY tucked away), and the most basic front that the game currently presents. A way to add order to the chaos. The advanced difficulty submenu I suggested on the beamdog forum would fall into this middle ground.
Take this reply for what it is though: I haven't had time to read through this thread, yet, and I may be completely misconceiving what people have in mind or repeating things. I'll come back to it later.
@caruga: the main thing is that they've already said that they're adding an advanced options menu. That menu IS going to be ingame, they're getting rid of bgconfig.
The only question which remains is how they'll organise the menu.
@HeroicSpur The other thing remaining is which options requests/ possibilities will be included, though I'm not sure they've said definitively that they're adding an AO section. They should though! >:-)
@caruga I'm assuming the regular difficulty levels will remain, so it's not as if you can't still brag of having beat the game on Insane. The AO would be supplementary and add different challenges, and tell me you wouldn't also brag of having beat the game on Insane with Items Nerfed or Items Relocated? For me it isn't about bragging but of enjoying the game at difficulties that make the game more interesting (and replayable), so I don't even need the regular difficulty settings and would be happy for them dissolved into individuated AO settings. But that's just me, and clearly others enjoy the game differently...
Oh, and so far between HeroicSpur and I we've got about 20 AO settings requests tops, not 144.
@caruga: the main thing is that they've already said that they're adding an advanced options menu. That menu IS going to be ingame, they're getting rid of bgconfig.
Great. It's not the concept itself, but are we (us and the devs) on the same page in regards to thoroughness?
Right now I'm wondering whether a separate thread is warranted for "advanced difficulty options", of which this is a superset of. I guess I can talk about it here.
The whole idea I'm enamoured with is having tiered configurability: at the lowest level you just have a sheet of indiscriminately organised options (kind of like what you get with about:config if you're using mozilla firefox browser). You get raw text fields which you can type values in.
Then on the next layer you work on interfacing it, with different degrees of exposure. But the next step up would be an also partly-concealed menu, as pertaining to the various option-categories.
Eventually you'd reach a place where you have groupings of presets--and speaking of difficulty options, that's what a difficulty slider would be. But you could also have tickboxes that group various settings, like a "creature comforts" tickbox that turns on tab, compass, AOE indicators, and attack lines, and other convenience features.
At the UI level generally, when you'd tick such a box, antecedent configuration pages going down to the most fundamental "advanced options", would colour-indicate what got changed since you last viewed those pages by the ticking of the box.
I'll stop here right now because it's a big topic that I have many thoughts on and my own head is spinning, right now I'm just combing every post in the beamdog thread for leftover ideas that haven't made the transition. I'll get back on this later.
@Caruga: You're right that it is an issue how the options are arranged. To be honest however I don't expect they will include a great many. The one that we are pretty sure they're including so far is 'auto collect gold from containers', some people prefer to pick it up, others prefer easier looting if it gets auto-collected.
So answering your question about thoroughness, until we know just how big the devs plan to make any AO menu, that may turn out to be redundant.
It may be the case for example that there are say 8 AOs. Are tiers and grouped presets relevant in that context? However if there are more, then it becomes more of an issue.
The key thing in whatever they decide to implement is simplicity. There is no doubt in my mind that any AO menu will be kept as simple and straightforward as possible. I think that's what your idea is getting at, by having easily defined categories.
Comments
Looking over the list of AO settings you and I have collectively been looking for (you don't have to agree with them all, of course, just making a list) this appears to be the delineation of the two types:
GAME START DEPENDENT
1. Nerf Major Game Items
2. Item Randomizer (ok, I tried to univeralize it by calling it "Relocator," but still...)
3. ** Enemies Pre-Buff Capacity (would require plenty of scripting built-in for spellcasters based on enemy spells available, caster level, etc.,; it wouldn't necessarily have to be reversed if loading a game after encountering pre-buffed spellcasters, but the effort would indeed require a lot of spellcasters to be accounted for in advance)
GAME LOAD DEPENDENT ONLY: i.e,. ALTERABLE MID-GAME WITH MINIMAL TO NO EXTRA DEV WORK
1. Merchant Prices (plus "Hard Times" increase during iron shortage)
2. Resting Risk Enhancement
3. Resting Area Scope
4. * Wearing Multiple Same-Effect Items (still has to do something about wearing multiple same-effect items at moment of change, of course- i.e., auto-removing to inventory or auto-dropping, having to account and script for either...)
5. AI Improvements (though the scope of this is likely too much to implement regardless of how it might be delineated)
6. Blackpixelation of Unexplored Terrain Auto-Removal (actually, come to think of it, this could work without any extra work beyond the basics of implementation because the pixels changed from black to, well, actual remain a constant)
7. Trap/ Lock XP Adjustment
8. Enemy HP Roll Allotment
9. ** Monster enhancement (though they'd have to add scripts to monster abilities or else add new monsters to script in instead)
10. ** Enemy Kill XP Allotment (depends on how kill XP is determined, but it's fortunately a fixed XP amount in 2E DnD after all)
* Arguably Game-Start Dependent Instead
** Hasn't been presented yet as a single tweak request
So actually I was being a bit pessimistic regarding how many of the AOs were weighing into making them CC-based. Such a relatively small list too for all the bloody work it potentially involves... :-) Cheers! >:-( The labeling of the AO Tab as "ADVANCED OPTIONS" isn't sufficient right there in the regular Settings tabs only two clicks away from being in-game? At the very least it's available at any time in-game, something which the CC and BGConfig aren't, of course. Wait, reversing your stance to oppose from the exact contrary position is just one of your devious cockblocker tactics, isn't it? :-P
My first impression of an 'advanced options menu' is negative but it depends on what would go into it. I think if there were a way to have various name-able presets (including some that the game ships with) might be handy. Maybe even have a tree-like interface of packaged, named 'preconfigurations', where a parent preconfiguration can be inherited by a child preconfig. Maybe this could be the fundamentals of a 'layered' configuration system, with different levels of exposure. Each tier up represents a simplification and consolidation of the layer below. Some measure of these fundamental workings would be hidden.
My wariness is that I don't want to rely on a single 'advanced' menu alone. I like to be able to say "I conquered the game on X difficulty" and not "I beat the game with the following 87 of the 144 advanced options toggled". If options are just shoved in a heap it just loses all meaning and nobody could keep track of it. You can say "it's only meant for such-and-such a hardcore player" but I don't even count myself on that group if it just means sifting through a ton of options.
I don't mind the idea but I hope there is some middle found between a "customize absolutely everything" submenu (which should be VERY tucked away), and the most basic front that the game currently presents. A way to add order to the chaos. The advanced difficulty submenu I suggested on the beamdog forum would fall into this middle ground.
Take this reply for what it is though: I haven't had time to read through this thread, yet, and I may be completely misconceiving what people have in mind or repeating things. I'll come back to it later.
The only question which remains is how they'll organise the menu.
The other thing remaining is which options requests/ possibilities will be included, though I'm not sure they've said definitively that they're adding an AO section. They should though! >:-)
@caruga
I'm assuming the regular difficulty levels will remain, so it's not as if you can't still brag of having beat the game on Insane. The AO would be supplementary and add different challenges, and tell me you wouldn't also brag of having beat the game on Insane with Items Nerfed or Items Relocated? For me it isn't about bragging but of enjoying the game at difficulties that make the game more interesting (and replayable), so I don't even need the regular difficulty settings and would be happy for them dissolved into individuated AO settings. But that's just me, and clearly others enjoy the game differently...
Oh, and so far between HeroicSpur and I we've got about 20 AO settings requests tops, not 144.
Right now I'm wondering whether a separate thread is warranted for "advanced difficulty options", of which this is a superset of. I guess I can talk about it here.
The whole idea I'm enamoured with is having tiered configurability: at the lowest level you just have a sheet of indiscriminately organised options (kind of like what you get with about:config if you're using mozilla firefox browser). You get raw text fields which you can type values in.
Then on the next layer you work on interfacing it, with different degrees of exposure. But the next step up would be an also partly-concealed menu, as pertaining to the various option-categories.
Eventually you'd reach a place where you have groupings of presets--and speaking of difficulty options, that's what a difficulty slider would be. But you could also have tickboxes that group various settings, like a "creature comforts" tickbox that turns on tab, compass, AOE indicators, and attack lines, and other convenience features.
At the UI level generally, when you'd tick such a box, antecedent configuration pages going down to the most fundamental "advanced options", would colour-indicate what got changed since you last viewed those pages by the ticking of the box.
I'll stop here right now because it's a big topic that I have many thoughts on and my own head is spinning, right now I'm just combing every post in the beamdog thread for leftover ideas that haven't made the transition.
So answering your question about thoroughness, until we know just how big the devs plan to make any AO menu, that may turn out to be redundant.
It may be the case for example that there are say 8 AOs. Are tiers and grouped presets relevant in that context? However if there are more, then it becomes more of an issue.
The key thing in whatever they decide to implement is simplicity. There is no doubt in my mind that any AO menu will be kept as simple and straightforward as possible. I think that's what your idea is getting at, by having easily defined categories.