Skip to content

Should there be an introduction to pvp in the Baldur's gate series?

2

Comments

  • Washcloth_RepairmanWashcloth_Repairman Member Posts: 35
    No reason for it. Look what happened to Mass Effect 3 after they shoehorned in uneccessary multiplayer. Adding any pvp would divert resources away from the single player, which is far more important.
  • KenKen Member Posts: 226
    edited August 2012
    Extra free new gamemode that many people could have fun with, and wouldn't have any impact on the original game content? And I have an option to choose to play it or not!?

    NO! What an abomination! Make sure it never sees the sun! When I think of it, remove "The Black Pits" too! It has nothing to do with the original story, and I WILL NOT have it!
  • Ulfgar_TorunnUlfgar_Torunn Member Posts: 169
    I don't understand why so many people are actively opposing PvP. It is a feature that would attract the current generation of gamers as well as occupying BG experts after their umpteenth playthrough.

    New multiplayer features have already been mentioned, and The Black Pits seem to already cater to arena style combat, so why not?
  • BaldurBaldur Member Posts: 54
    edited August 2012
    Because the Black Pits are clearly more in-line with a single-player style of Arena gameplay. Mainly in a 'scoreboard' context, similar to how The Witcher 2 has it. Not as a PvP mechanic. Plus The Black Pits have a story, and a narrative, and isn't intended for people to stroke their e-peen over how they min-maxed their characters and made their 1's and 0's beat someone else's 1's and 0's. PvP is everything I hate about online multiplayer.
  • KenKen Member Posts: 226
    edited August 2012
    Baldur said:

    Because the Black Pits are clearly more in-line with a single-player style of Arena gameplay. Mainly in a 'scoreboard' context, similar to how The Witcher 2 has it. Not as a PvP mechanic. Plus The Black Pits have a story, and a narrative, and isn't intended for people to stroke their e-peen over how they min-maxed their characters and made their 1's and 0's beat someone else's 1's and 0's. PvP is everything I hate about online multiplayer.

    Yes, because competitions are the worst thing in the world right? We can't and shan't have the opportunity for Baldur's Gate duels! What if someone challenged me!? The horror!!!
  • kamuizinkamuizin Member Posts: 3,704
    PVP isn't a good idea for this game, it's not the game, or the plot, or the style that makes PVP incompatible, it's the engine.

    Infinite Engine isn't an engine made for PVP.

    Baldur's gate reach it's status by making one of the best single player story ever made, let's not change the winning team, shall we?
  • BaldurBaldur Member Posts: 54
    edited August 2012
    Ken said:

    Yes, because competitions are the worst thing in the world right? We can't and shan't have the opportunity for Baldur's Gate duels! What if someone challenged me!? The horror!!!

    Oh noes! A videogame where I can't act like a prick to other people with PvP and fixate on mindless competitive gameplay instead of cooperation and mutual enjoyment of a narrative as the game was intended?! God forbid that in a market oversaturated with PvP Multiplayer gimmicks that a game should exist that isn't focused on it! I must campaign to have PvP added to this game and mock anyone who doesn't like it in a roundabout, snide fashion by exaggerating their opinion for the purpose of making it look inferior to my own opinion! For the justice of all PvP'tards!
  • KenKen Member Posts: 226
    The engine would be fine for PVP, if they just could give the other player an enemy status so party friendly spells would work.

    The thing I just don't understand is:
    It would be a tiny new feature (maybe alot of code work, maybe not), that a friend or two could play (maybe even 12 at once dunno). Nothing that would outshine the new stuff OR the original multiplayer.

    And you would never ever be bothered with it if YOU DIDN'T want to. I might not like a game's different multiplayer modes, then I just don't play that particular mode.

    Simple as that, many would enjoy taking on each other.. Why deny them (someone like me) that because YOU wouldn't want to?

    "Because it interferes with the original intent of the game"
    We all now that BG1 is all about the story and singleplayer, so It cannot in any way suddenly ruin that great experience. Neither the current multiplayer

    "It is just a gimmick"
    But a fairly entertaining one for sure!

    "It would be unbalanced - cheating"
    Would still work great among two friends who duke it out

    "Would take focus away from development"
    The game is almost released, and the dual mode would most likely be DLC. Maybe it would even cost something, in which case you could just avoid buying it. Besides, I do believe they would adjust their priorities for whatever DLC would gain the game most correctly.


    I see it as a cool oppertunity to dual against friends, or an awesome everchanging AI
  • BaldurBaldur Member Posts: 54
    edited August 2012
    The funny thing is that your justifications have been used over and over again for other current-day games, and guess what? Each and all of those justifications turned out to be bollocks on account of the fact that in the end the Multiplayer took away from the final product. The more important thing to consider here is.. why don't you just go play the gazillion other games that have Multiplayer PvP?

    You can play NWN2, in particular, since that grants full party controls, and Multiplayer, so just buy NWN2, and then log into a PvP server there. I fail to see why you deem it a necessity to wedge something most of us don't want or even like, just because you think some inconsequential percentage of modern-day gamers would buy the game for it. Upon which I can't help but find myself thinking: Screw 'em. If PvP multiplayer is a deal-breaker for those people, then they weren't the target audience in the first place.

    Honestly, you never see any of us waltzing into PvP Multiplayer game development forums, or First-Person Shooter dev. forums and demanding that those games have more turn-based, point-and-click movement'd, single-player cRPG attributes put in last-minute, because that way a small percentage of RPG gamers who just-so-happen to have a minor interest in Shooters and such would definitely be interested in buying the game if it did, and if it didn't would have no interest otherwise.

    And yet everyone finds themselves SO justified, SO righteous and perfectly entitled in demanding that these other features be wedged in just to serve them when it comes to games that clearly aren't aimed at them. But hey, perhaps that's what us cRPG players should start doing from now on. We should start flooding WoW forums, Call of Duty and Modern Warfare forums, and harping on and on and on about how features that could work if only you devoted a large enough percentage of resources and effort to making that one feature just for us-- oh wait, we already had that happen to Mass Effect, where the crowd of RPG fans got ignored in favor of the Shooter fans. Silly me, expecting us and the kinds of games we enjoy to matter, even in a re-release of a game expressly intended FOR us and the kinds of games we enjoy.
  • MilesBeyondMilesBeyond Member Posts: 324
    I'm not even sure why this is such a controversy. It's already a thing. I remember, back in the Gamespy days, you would occasionally stumble upon a PVP BG game where everyone would get a certain amount of slots to import characters, then have at it. It was fun in a stupid kind of way. Disable all pause privileges for everyone and set it on auto-pause every round.

    What was really entertaining about it, though, was the ability to face other opponents who knew how to counter your tactics. The effect of a Spell Trigger loaded with three Cloudkills isn't quite as astonishing when the other side has a priest that actually uses the spell Zone of Sweet Air.

    Mage battles, in particular, turn into a contest of wits and foresight.

    Some sort of formalized PVP system? Where people can bring in entire parties? I dunno, I guess. So long as it's not taking priority over other, more important things.
  • kamuizinkamuizin Member Posts: 3,704
    To let it clear i just don't want, and my justify is: i just don't want.

    in fact i really don't care if it's done or not, surelly i will not use it anyway. So my no just means you don't have a support or an oposition in me. Feel free to ask directly to the devs. If it's done i will not complain either.
  • KenKen Member Posts: 226

    I'm not even sure why this is such a controversy. It's already a thing. I remember, back in the Gamespy days, you would occasionally stumble upon a PVP BG game where everyone would get a certain amount of slots to import characters, then have at it. It was fun in a stupid kind of way. Disable all pause privileges for everyone and set it on auto-pause every round.

    What was really entertaining about it, though, was the ability to face other opponents who knew how to counter your tactics. The effect of a Spell Trigger loaded with three Cloudkills isn't quite as astonishing when the other side has a priest that actually uses the spell Zone of Sweet Air.

    Mage battles, in particular, turn into a contest of wits and foresight.

    Some sort of formalized PVP system? Where people can bring in entire parties? I dunno, I guess. So long as it's not taking priority over other, more important things.

    Exactly, it is almost already there, and with a few tweaks, other spells would work properly (like contengenties) and voila, we had an fun extra multiplayer activity.
  • BaldurBaldur Member Posts: 54
    Then go ahead and just make a mod for it yourself, that way you and yours can choose to download and install it yourselves.
  • KerozevokKerozevok Member Posts: 695
    BG is a RPG (Role Player Game), there's a million other games for the PvP.
  • sepottersepotter Member Posts: 367
    I don't think Baldur's Gate is really set up for PVP, besides, with the easily accessible mods, there would be way to much cheating.
  • kiroskiros Member Posts: 119
    I think PVP would be exciting, to fight against an oppenent that constantly integrates new tactics into a battle would be something fresh and new. Having a dynamic fight (pause removed) or turn-based would need to be implemented, but I don't think having PVP included would be such a big issue.
  • GueulEclatorGueulEclator Member Posts: 175
    edited August 2012
    what, are all the guys here idiotic? WHy such a negative reaction to what could be an awesome feature. I don't know you guys, but it's has always been my dream to face my friends party vs party and see who is the better, more strtegic player.

    PVP battles would be epic.

    quote from another post : ''I'm not even sure why this is such a controversy. It's already a thing. I remember, back in the Gamespy days, you would occasionally stumble upon a PVP BG game where everyone would get a certain amount of slots to import characters, then have at it. It was fun in a stupid kind of way. Disable all pause privileges for everyone and set it on auto-pause every round.
    What was really entertaining about it, though, was the ability to face other opponents who knew how to counter your tactics. The effect of a Spell Trigger loaded with three Cloudkills isn't quite as astonishing when the other side has a priest that actually uses the spell Zone of Sweet Air.
    Mage battles, in particular, turn into a contest of wits and foresight.
    Some sort of formalized PVP system? Where people can bring in entire parties? I dunno, I guess. So long as it's not taking priority over other, more important things.''

    PVP battles would be extremely popular, especially for the new members of the community (those that played baldurs gate 10 years ago but only come back to it now).

    A simple Arena with two things facing off, pause disable : that's all we need. That wouldn't even take long to make.
    And considering the fact that it's easy to cheat, and most classes are unbalanced, the experience would stay casual and relaxed. It wouldn't overtake the single player.
  • GueulEclatorGueulEclator Member Posts: 175
    to those who are against, why cant you have this attitude : '' If it later adds PvP, I'll be just as disinterested, though I'll understand it better. Just because I'm not interested in PvP, I do realize that many people are. Therefore, it gives another option to enjoy the game to those who wanted such an element (especially since game engine exploits won't work as well against human opponents and whatnot).''
  • GueulEclatorGueulEclator Member Posts: 175

    I don't understand why so many people are actively opposing PvP. It is a feature that would attract the current generation of gamers as well as occupying BG experts after their umpteenth playthrough.

    New multiplayer features have already been mentioned, and The Black Pits seem to already cater to arena style combat, so why not?

  • HertzHertz Member Posts: 109
    PVP is a great thing for the modding community to work on, but not so good for the developers to spend time on. Dev time is expensive and it should be spent on content that has a revenue stream (eg, paid DLC) rather than rebalancing and nerfing and buffing and patching the exploits in the existing stuff (which doesn't earn them anything).

    PVP is fine for those who like it, but ultimately it should be an option. There always seems to be the contingent of players who says, "PVP is a better, harder style of gaming, therefore the best loot should only be available if you PVP." When that doesn't draw crowds, the argument goes, "It's too quiet in here. CEvery player should have a mandatory quest in PVP." Finally, "There should be PVP zones outside every city." It is the kind of gaming style which tries to creep into other aspects of the game.

    If PVP is popular and in demand, there must be modders willing to implement it. Have at it! Seriously. I hope you have great fun. :)
  • GueulEclatorGueulEclator Member Posts: 175
    Hertz said:

    PVP is a great thing for the modding community to work on, but not so good for the developers to spend time on. Dev time is expensive and it should be spent on content that has a revenue stream (eg, paid DLC) rather than rebalancing and nerfing and buffing and patching the exploits in the existing stuff (which doesn't earn them anything).

    PVP is fine for those who like it, but ultimately it should be an option. There always seems to be the contingent of players who says, "PVP is a better, harder style of gaming, therefore the best loot should only be available if you PVP." When that doesn't draw crowds, the argument goes, "It's too quiet in here. CEvery player should have a mandatory quest in PVP." Finally, "There should be PVP zones outside every city." It is the kind of gaming style which tries to creep into other aspects of the game.

    If PVP is popular and in demand, there must be modders willing to implement it. Have at it! Seriously. I hope you have great fun. :)

    Well I disagree. Develloper are typically the ones that can change these core games mecanics to allow PVP.

    All the devs have to do is make a simple PVP mod : very simple, very basic but functionnal.

    THEN the modders can come and improve it, add more diversity...

    But the core mecanism tweak that PVP requires can only be handled by professional devellopers
    Yet, since all the devs have to do is release a functional PVP, it won't require them too much time and thinking.


    DEvs put the foundations, the modders do the rest.

  • kamuizinkamuizin Member Posts: 3,704

    to those who are against, why cant you have this attitude : '' If it later adds PvP, I'll be just as disinterested, though I'll understand it better. Just because I'm not interested in PvP, I do realize that many people are. Therefore, it gives another option to enjoy the game to those who wanted such an element (especially since game engine exploits won't work as well against human opponents and whatnot).''


    Now i must support something i don't want for the sake of other ppl fun? Not only me but most ppl that don't want simply don't care, i have my beliefs to reject a PvP idea, so can i have at least the right to manifest my will or this is ask too much?

    As i said before, foward this request to a dev. dude, and let them decide, but if you ask me if i want, i will not lie so you can feel better, cos I... DON'T... WANT.
  • GueulEclatorGueulEclator Member Posts: 175
    kamuizin said:

    to those who are against, why cant you have this attitude : '' If it later adds PvP, I'll be just as disinterested, though I'll understand it better. Just because I'm not interested in PvP, I do realize that many people are. Therefore, it gives another option to enjoy the game to those who wanted such an element (especially since game engine exploits won't work as well against human opponents and whatnot).''


    Now i must support something i don't want for the sake of other ppl fun? Not only me but most ppl that don't want simply don't care, i have my beliefs to reject a PvP idea, so can i have at least the right to manifest my will or this is ask too much?

    As i said before, foward this request to a dev. dude, and let them decide, but if you ask me if i want, i will not lie so you can feel better, cos I... DON'T... WANT.
    It won't hurt your damned game experience. It will just allow people ,that have friend to play baldur's gate with, to have a better multiplayer experience.

    And it's not like it would be too long or complicated to implement. There almost nothing to do except putting two team in an empty space.


    Coop gaming is now much more prominent than it was before, and I believe a pvp would attract much more players (and not necessarily 12 year old kids, in fact its quite the opposite).

    Most multiplayer games that i play, end up with us trying to kill each other to determine who is the strongest. If you ask, most players that play baldur's gate multi would love to have a pvp mode. Just go on gameranger if you don't believe me.

  • kamuizinkamuizin Member Posts: 3,704
    @GueulEclator, what i raised is a third option dude, the "i don't want and i don't care if it's done" option, do as you wish, implement, don't implement...

    In my 3° option, i don't want PvP and ppl who want will not have support from me to ask the devs, but in another side, if done, i will not complain.

    I voted in "No Baldur's gate pvp would not work at all", for the lack of "i don't want but i don't care if done".

    When i quoted the post, i just mean that i with the right to reject the idea, only that.

    i already raised my reasons to reject the idea in my first post in this thread, i'm not here to get my mind changed, i understand the reasons of ppl that want the implement, and after evaluate the problems and benefits from a change like this, i ended with my personal option.

    If you want to see this option implemented, you're doing the wrong way, name an @ + dev name and ask for the possibility of this implementation.

  • GueulEclatorGueulEclator Member Posts: 175
    @kumuizin Well yeah I think there was a misunderstanding then.

    I do want to ask the devellopers about the possiblity of a PVP mod, but except their recent reddit, they aren't really active.
  • xLegionxxLegionx Member Posts: 197
    Yeah same here. My friends would just kill eachother infront of Baldur's gate to see who was the strongest. It's typically how it goes down on alot of games. However, I don't believe there will be duels at all because certain classes (mage, for instance) are just too powerful to go up against alone so party vs party battles is the only viable option.

    If they do introduce pvp into the game though when it releases thats the first thing I'm playing since I already beat the story. I hope they release pvp it would be freaking awesome!
  • GueulEclatorGueulEclator Member Posts: 175
    Well i don't personally care if it's balanced or not, the point is just to be able to take my favorite party and face off my friend in an epic battle to see who is really the best.

    No need to be competitive. Me too, it's the first thing I will be playing : I have a 12 years old argument to settle with my best friend, and it's time we do it once and for all.
  • DragonserpentDragonserpent Member Posts: 15
    While I'm not entirely opposed to the idea, I'd just prefer that the designers spend their energies and efforts in most any other direction before Pvp. It's not the reason I play the game, and it wouldn't be the best platform or style to play any sort of player on player combat.
  • GueulEclatorGueulEclator Member Posts: 175
    edited September 2012

    While I'm not entirely opposed to the idea, I'd just prefer that the designers spend their energies and efforts in most any other direction before Pvp. It's not the reason I play the game, and it wouldn't be the best platform or style to play any sort of player on player combat.

    wouldn't be the best platform? If you have played this game with your friends, You'll find out that PVPing them is the first thing that comes to mind when playing with them. Most multiplayer games end up with people killing each other to find out who is the strongest. It's something the multiplayer community has always wanted to see.


    As for the amount of resources, it's not like we really know how much time it would require to be implemented. I could take less than a few days of work. Especially since all we want is a functional PVP, with the modders doing the rest.
    Adding PVP would add so much hours of replay content, and give the baldur's gate multiplayer what it always needed.


    Remember that Baldur's gate was always heavily criticized on it's lack of multiplayer content.
  • BaldurBaldur Member Posts: 54
    I seriously love how the main reasoning pulled out whenever us more RPG-inclined individuals don't want our cRPGs stifled by the baneful PvP bollocks that's oversaturated today's gaming industry is that 'well if you don't like it, just don't play it and let it be put in for us'. I've yet to see that kind of logic be applied by any of us whenever it comes to any other games. We don't march along and declare 'you know, like, you know what'd be, like, totally awesome for World of Warcraft? If you could, like, stop combat with a Pause button so you could use tactics. Or, like, you know, initiate a conversation with another player so you can use your Intimidate or Charm checks to talk them out of fighting you and giving you their money. You know, 'cause, like, those of us who love the interaction parts of RPGs would love that, and that'd totally be a selling point for us. And if you guys don't like it, well, like, you can just not do that stuff, y'know?'

    We don't do that to your shit, so why you gotta barge into our house and declare we gotta do shit YOUR way? Every. Goddamned. Time. Every freaking time there's a GOOD RPG out there, ya goddamned PvP'tards gotta waltz right in and ruin the freakin' fun, interaction-based RPG for the rest of us.
Sign In or Register to comment.