The amount of PVP haters in this thread is astounding. I can understand if you don't think PVP fits with baldur's gate, but hating over PVP in general? I saw some pretty insulting comments towards PVP gamers, and that's not very fair. PVP doesn't necessarely means WoW, it can also mean starcraft 2 (amazing PVP), Arma 2, soul calibur 2, age of empire 2... I dare you to day PVP in those games is bad.
Why the fixation with WoW?
Again, you can hate about PVP in BG, but please don't hate over PVP in general, because the LAST thing heroes of might and magic 3 PVP is, is ''mindless''. (also chess is PVP, would you call chess a mindless game for 12 years old?)
Anyway, the devs have stated that they were interested by implementing PVP but the amount of hardcoding is too high. So no PVP in the near future, but maybe some in the long term.
I'm not calling PvP in and of itself mindless. I'm calling shoehorning it into every freaking thing under the sun mindless. I'm calling the gormless masses who feel a need to demand PvP being shoehorned into everything mindless. And I'm calling the idea of shoehorning it into Baldur's Gate in particular mindless.
Baldur if you don't have anything good to say then shut ur trap! There are always going to be players who love stories and players who love pvp. I'm in between so I support everyone's point of view on this topic but there's no need to get so hyped up about us pvp'ers wanting a game that we can play until we grow old so just chill dude...
Traditional Baldur's Gate already had PvP. In fact is was a major part after you beat the game over and over again. I remember on MPlayer and Gamespy it was great.
Traditional Baldur's Gate already had PvP. In fact is was a major part after you beat the game over and over again. I remember on MPlayer and Gamespy it was great.
Yea, but it needs hardcoded tweaks to work properly (Like Remove Magic wouldn't work like it is supposed to)
I think @Baldur just lost too many matches against human players..
@xLegionx Oh yeah, 'cause that's an acceptable piece of reasoning; "If you don't support our PvP, shut up and let us have our PvP silently!"
And no, @Ken that actually isn't the case. I haven't, in fact, lost ANY matches against human player - 'cause I don't do PvP. I never have done PvP, because I'm not interested in it. Never have been interested in it, never will be interested in it, and your strawman argumentative whining about the fact that not everyone shares you enthusiasm for it isn't going to change my stance on it.
Thats not what I meant at all. It's just well certain individuals like you make people like me have a bad day and when people rage and say rude things people tend to pay them back in kind. It's ok though bro as I said I'm in between story and pvp so I support your view!
Still, you can use that rage you have against people in bg pvp matches ya know? Like the dark side in sw where they say "Anger supports the dark side" ya know. Rage win against nerds online in pvp matches and tell them you hate pvp afterwards! That should really send a clear msg!
That logic makes no sense whatsoever, "If you hate PvP, you should DO PvP just so you can tell people how much you hate it!" ..what kind of retard logic is that? All that'd do is result in people like you coming up with the classic 'omfg if u haet it SO much y u pley fggt?' response. I love how the only options presented to those of us who hate PvP is either 'shut up and accept it' or 'accept it and bitch, but keep the bitching to a minimum'.
Baldur if you don't have anything good to say then shut ur trap!
in other words, you want a thread filled with agreement and shorn of dissent. That sounds like you aren't interested in any discussion.
PVP requires constant and careful rebalancing in order to be fun and fair. Gamers (whether they PVP or not) are good at beating up an engine to find the exploits, whether they are in-game (this spell is overpowered, this armor is the best) or meta-game (eg, packet sniffers, scripts, saving the game, cheat codes, etc). It takes elfpower to chase these down and patch them.
Since the AI doesn't complain about exploits, it's PVP which drives most rebalancing efforts. It could end up taking things away from the single-player campaign to balance PVP. And it certainly takes time and effort.
DLC > PVP. DLC = $$$. Unless there is some pay-to-use PVP content, I don't see the economic advantage to focusing on it. This isn't about hate for PVP, it's about the business model.
I am completely ambivalent towards PvP and I won't be playing the Black Pits either, unless some clever modder integrates into the main plot *cough* BG2 Underdark instead of the silly arena there at the moment *cough* but I just wanted to say I admire the tenacity of PvP fans across multiple threads in teh face of stiff opposition. Well played.
tl;dr: I oppose PvP in BG1:EE under any circumstances, including standalone modes, because I believe that doing so would result in PvP considerations dominating future development efforts at Overhaul Games.
I [part of the "No PvP in BG1/2/3 under any circumstances" group are not out to run other peoples fun. However, we DO believe (with numerous examples: DA & ME are obvious -- the trends in MMORPGs are another) that:
1) There are far, far more PvP players in the current market than there are "traditional" / "old-style" RPG players 2) Once PvP players are introduced into a gaming series (either by adding a feature such as the one being discussed, by players hacking together something that works, or simply because the series is popular) they will make up the majority of sales for that series / company -- and will be highly vocal in making their wishes known for future releases on message boards. 3) As a consequence of #1 and #2, the developers WILL start catering to this community. They already responded to feedback to add a "PvP mode" in the first place, after all, so why wouldn't they listen to the additional feedback about how to improve it? 4) As a consequence of #3, the single player gaming experience that the "traditional" / "old-style" RPG player is looking for WILL be compromised eventually, as it is intrinsically "not PvP friendly". It will take years for the effect to be obvious, but the end result is that the series of games games will evolve into something that "traditional" / "old-style" RPG players simply don't like and won't buy. Again, we've seen this happen many, many times in the past.
Note that the "anti-PvP" group is not arguing that adding PvP wouldn't make the game a financial success. On the contrary, I believe that adding PvP would dramatically improve the chances of the game being a financial success. However, I also wouldn't be buying the game if this was added -- for that matter, I wouldn't even purchase the game if this was offered as an extra-cost (optional) DLC component. The reason that I'm purchasing BG1:EE is to support future development of similar games, not to play BG1 again (frankly, I much preferred BG2). Once Overhaul Games "invites" the PvP group to join the discussion (by adding a PvP mode no matter how minimal) then... Well, I've seen where that road ends. Why in the world would I purchase a game that I don't REALLY have a burning desire to play simply to see games that I positively don't want to play produced in the future?
Many games ... that were built from the ground up with PVP in mind.
You may be such a fan of PVP in any form that you aren't assessing this objectively, so I'll ask: how many 15-year-old games have been successfully rewritten from the ground up to get PVP added to them, without changing the game experience at all for the single-player mode?
What other games have accomplished, when they are built from Day 1 to have PVP functionality, is not the point at all.
And to elaborate on what @Hertz said, I'd argue that a game that was built from the "...ground up to with PvP in mind" is one that ALREADY compromised the single player, PvM design in favor of PvP. At the very least, the lack of anything to compare it with makes it impossible to state conclusively otherwise.
So, @GueulEclator, can you show an example of a series that:
1) Initially provided the following functionality: a) The ability to give all possible orders while the game is paused. Turn based counts, and so does something like BG. Mass Effect does not -- you cannot select targets for abilities while the game is paused, as you can't aim. From what I understand, Fallout 3 (which I haven't played) suffers from similar limitations. b) The ability to control several different units, with the same degree of control over all units. Neverwinter Nights fails here as you can't control your companions to the same degree that you can control your own character. c) Once an ability / command is used (by the player or by the AI), success or failure is determined 100% by the fixed rules of the game, without regards to further inputs by the player. DA:O counts here -- if you are targeted by an attack with a long animation , recognize it, and move out of the way, whether or not you are hit is determined by your /characters/ stats, not by the position of the your character at the time the animation finishes. DA:2 does not -- and, in fact, dodging attacks like this is a mandatory part of game play. 2) Was initially released with no PvP component at all. 3) In a later release (can be a totally separate title by the same developer, as long as it is "in the same universe"), that include some sort of PvP component. 4) The later release still contains all of the items listed in #1 -- and this is considered a GOOD thing, rather than a defect that needs to be corrected.
I've already provided one clear example myself -- the single player game play of Bioware titles has (looking strictly at the items listed in #1) clearly suffered over time, and I would argue that this drop can be traced directly to the desire to cater to multiplayer style game play (of which PvP is a component).
Just to be crystal clear: I'm not arguing that a game that does not include the items listed in #1 is necessarily a BAD game, nor that making the changes that they did was the wrong decision. In fact, making compromises like this can (and, in fact, HAS) made a clearly superior (overall) game, as expanding the game's potential audience allows more money to be spent on the game as a whole. My argument is simply that the items listed in #1 are fundamentally incompatible with multiplayer (and, by extension, PvP), and that if you value those items above all else then it makes perfect sense to oppose the includsion of PvP in any shpae or form.
I don't know whether the functions are incompatible, @MReed -- I'm no developer. It may not be as difficult as you describe, or it may be more.
To be fair, I'm NOT saying the developers can't do it. I'm NOT saying they shouldn't. I'm NOT saying the engine canna take any more, cap'n.
I am saying, "Where is the money in it?". PVP takes nurturing, balancing, integrating new powers, patching holes, fixing brokenly good tactics; their business model seems to be for-fee DLC. If I'm spending $20 on DLC, but getting $5 of content and $15 of PVP additions, I won't be a customer very long. So how does all this new proposed PVP stuff get paid for?
@Hertz -- then we have the same position for different reasons.
My position is that the developer CAN do it (with difficulty, as discussed), and that there IS money in it (lots of money, actually), but they should NOT do it (because it is fundamentally incompatible with the BG-style of gameplay).
Honestly, I suspect that a stand-alone PvP module (as discussed in this thread), with no attempt at balancing classes or items, would sell quite well as a $5 DLC -- and drive sales of BG1:EE up by a significant amount (25% wouldn't surprise me).
Of course, having done that, then there would be further changes to support PvP in BG2:EE, as the developers respond to feedback from the new (expanded) customer base. My expectation is that some effort would be made to re-balance the classes (mostly by adding equipment, due to contractual limitations), pause options optimized for PvP would be added, and PvP would be added (as an option!) to the core game.
Having done that, then I would expect more extensive changes in the theoretical BG3 (or other original game written by Overhaul Games). Most likely, the ability to access inventory while the game is paused would be removed altogether (even in single player), considerable effort would be expended to ensure that the classes balanced against one another, and options / features (more quickbar slots, additional target options) would be added to make playing the game without pausing feasible.
After that, I would expect full party control to be eliminated (see NWN) and likely the addition of twitch play elements (if you aren't there when the blow lands, then you never take damage). Somewhere around this time the title will become a dual console / PC title, and there will be a number of compromises that result from that as well (elimination / minimization of the isometric view).
If I didn't think that PvP would be a financial winner for Overhaul Games, I wouldn't bother to argue against it...
I don't believe it is a financial winner -- not yet, anyway. Rewriting the game code is expensive and complex. Nailing down exploits and cheats is similarly difficult unless Beamdog is prepared to host a server a la Battle.net to curb item duping, cheat codes, illegal builds, trainers, and such. That, too, is expensive. The cost of NOT controlling the cheats is a buggy, uneven, unfair PVP experience that will cost them sales. We've already heard from the devs that a PVP change involves a "shocking" number of changes to the hard code. Right off the bat, it's expensive just getting off the launch pad.
Is there enough demand to pay the bills? I don't know. (Polls on these forums run about 2:1 against.) There may be a sizable demand for PVP games, as you say; but just as hamburgers are the most popular food, that doesn't mean all restaurants should be hamburger joints. Me, I want pizza.
There may be a sizable demand for PVP games, as you say; but just as hamburgers are the most popular food, that doesn't mean all restaurants should be hamburger joints. Me, I want pizza.
This I agree with 100%...
In regards to the validity of the polls, @GueulEclator is 100% accurate in pointing out that the current sample is VERY biased (in favor of traditional, old-style, RPG players) and that the long-term success of Overhaul Games (and BG) depends primarily on users that have never played Baldur's Gate.
My fondest hope is that there are enough of these new users to support the franchise WITHOUT making gameplay changes. My greatest fear is that @GueulEclator is correct, and only by adding PvP will we see sufficient sales to justify a BG:3.
Biased? No, that would imply the polls were *unfairly* skewed in the direction of PVE RPG style play, for this game, among many people who have preordered it. The results heavily favor non-PVP, but this is not proof of bias.
There's 3 pages already and I'm not gonna lie, I'm too lazy to see if this has been mentioned.
But there is already PVP in Baldur's Gate. You can only do 3v3, though, and not full party of 6 vs. another full party.
You can target allies with attacks and spells and all that nonsense. The only things you couldn't utilize are spells that effect enemies only, like Sleep or Horrid Wilting.
There's 3 pages already and I'm not gonna lie, I'm too lazy to see if this has been mentioned.
But there is already PVP in Baldur's Gate. You can only do 3v3, though, and not full party of 6 vs. another full party.
You can target allies with attacks and spells and all that nonsense. The only things you couldn't utilize are spells that effect enemies only, like Sleep or Horrid Wilting.
It's still pretty limited, especially for fighters : you can't instantly target your opponent them as they don't have red bar : that's extremely annoying.
Also proper PVP requires proper mechanism. A PVP mod would go with PVP exclusive mechanism (won't affect singleplayer) to make the experience much smoother.
The Pause can be easily fixed , there are a lot of solutions to come up with. Some spells would be balanced a little bit, ad some other mechanism too.
Spell balance and new mechanism wouldn't really take that much time to implement (spell balance is really quick) and mechanism are simple, small fixes.
There can also be more variety : dungeon race, battle...
There's 3 pages already and I'm not gonna lie, I'm too lazy to see if this has been mentioned.
But there is already PVP in Baldur's Gate. You can only do 3v3, though, and not full party of 6 vs. another full party.
You can target allies with attacks and spells and all that nonsense. The only things you couldn't utilize are spells that effect enemies only, like Sleep or Horrid Wilting.
Comments
I saw some pretty insulting comments towards PVP gamers, and that's not very fair. PVP doesn't necessarely means WoW, it can also mean starcraft 2 (amazing PVP), Arma 2, soul calibur 2, age of empire 2... I dare you to day PVP in those games is bad.
Why the fixation with WoW?
Again, you can hate about PVP in BG, but please don't hate over PVP in general, because the LAST thing heroes of might and magic 3 PVP is, is ''mindless''.
(also chess is PVP, would you call chess a mindless game for 12 years old?)
Anyway, the devs have stated that they were interested by implementing PVP but the amount of hardcoding is too high. So no PVP in the near future, but maybe some in the long term.
I think @Baldur just lost too many matches against human players..
And no, @Ken that actually isn't the case. I haven't, in fact, lost ANY matches against human player - 'cause I don't do PvP. I never have done PvP, because I'm not interested in it. Never have been interested in it, never will be interested in it, and your strawman argumentative whining about the fact that not everyone shares you enthusiasm for it isn't going to change my stance on it.
Thats not what I meant at all. It's just well certain individuals like you make people like me have a bad day and when people rage and say rude things people tend to pay them back in kind. It's ok though bro as I said I'm in between story and pvp so I support your view!
Still, you can use that rage you have against people in bg pvp matches ya know? Like the dark side in sw where they say "Anger supports the dark side" ya know. Rage win against nerds online in pvp matches and tell them you hate pvp afterwards! That should really send a clear msg!
Someone uses Shadowkeeper and forget any fair play
PVP requires constant and careful rebalancing in order to be fun and fair. Gamers (whether they PVP or not) are good at beating up an engine to find the exploits, whether they are in-game (this spell is overpowered, this armor is the best) or meta-game (eg, packet sniffers, scripts, saving the game, cheat codes, etc). It takes elfpower to chase these down and patch them.
Since the AI doesn't complain about exploits, it's PVP which drives most rebalancing efforts. It could end up taking things away from the single-player campaign to balance PVP. And it certainly takes time and effort.
DLC > PVP. DLC = $$$. Unless there is some pay-to-use PVP content, I don't see the economic advantage to focusing on it. This isn't about hate for PVP, it's about the business model.
I [part of the "No PvP in BG1/2/3 under any circumstances" group are not out to run other peoples fun. However, we DO believe (with numerous examples: DA & ME are obvious -- the trends in MMORPGs are another) that:
1) There are far, far more PvP players in the current market than there are "traditional" / "old-style" RPG players
2) Once PvP players are introduced into a gaming series (either by adding a feature such as the one being discussed, by players hacking together something that works, or simply because the series is popular) they will make up the majority of sales for that series / company -- and will be highly vocal in making their wishes known for future releases on message boards.
3) As a consequence of #1 and #2, the developers WILL start catering to this community. They already responded to feedback to add a "PvP mode" in the first place, after all, so why wouldn't they listen to the additional feedback about how to improve it?
4) As a consequence of #3, the single player gaming experience that the "traditional" / "old-style" RPG player is looking for WILL be compromised eventually, as it is intrinsically "not PvP friendly". It will take years for the effect to be obvious, but the end result is that the series of games games will evolve into something that "traditional" / "old-style" RPG players simply don't like and won't buy. Again, we've seen this happen many, many times in the past.
Note that the "anti-PvP" group is not arguing that adding PvP wouldn't make the game a financial success. On the contrary, I believe that adding PvP would dramatically improve the chances of the game being a financial success. However, I also wouldn't be buying the game if this was added -- for that matter, I wouldn't even purchase the game if this was offered as an extra-cost (optional) DLC component. The reason that I'm purchasing BG1:EE is to support future development of similar games, not to play BG1 again (frankly, I much preferred BG2). Once Overhaul Games "invites" the PvP group to join the discussion (by adding a PvP mode no matter how minimal) then... Well, I've seen where that road ends. Why in the world would I purchase a game that I don't REALLY have a burning desire to play simply to see games that I positively don't want to play produced in the future?
I have seen many games that completely contradict what you just wrote.
PVP and old school RPG are not incompatible, many games have demonstrated it.
You may be such a fan of PVP in any form that you aren't assessing this objectively, so I'll ask: how many 15-year-old games have been successfully rewritten from the ground up to get PVP added to them, without changing the game experience at all for the single-player mode?
What other games have accomplished, when they are built from Day 1 to have PVP functionality, is not the point at all.
So, @GueulEclator, can you show an example of a series that:
1) Initially provided the following functionality:
a) The ability to give all possible orders while the game is paused. Turn based counts, and so does something like BG. Mass Effect does not -- you cannot select targets for abilities while the game is paused, as you can't aim. From what I understand, Fallout 3 (which I haven't played) suffers from similar limitations.
b) The ability to control several different units, with the same degree of control over all units. Neverwinter Nights fails here as you can't control your companions to the same degree that you can control your own character.
c) Once an ability / command is used (by the player or by the AI), success or failure is determined 100% by the fixed rules of the game, without regards to further inputs by the player. DA:O counts here -- if you are targeted by an attack with a long animation , recognize it, and move out of the way, whether or not you are hit is determined by your /characters/ stats, not by the position of the your character at the time the animation finishes. DA:2 does not -- and, in fact, dodging attacks like this is a mandatory part of game play.
2) Was initially released with no PvP component at all.
3) In a later release (can be a totally separate title by the same developer, as long as it is "in the same universe"), that include some sort of PvP component.
4) The later release still contains all of the items listed in #1 -- and this is considered a GOOD thing, rather than a defect that needs to be corrected.
I've already provided one clear example myself -- the single player game play of Bioware titles has (looking strictly at the items listed in #1) clearly suffered over time, and I would argue that this drop can be traced directly to the desire to cater to multiplayer style game play (of which PvP is a component).
Just to be crystal clear: I'm not arguing that a game that does not include the items listed in #1 is necessarily a BAD game, nor that making the changes that they did was the wrong decision. In fact, making compromises like this can (and, in fact, HAS) made a clearly superior (overall) game, as expanding the game's potential audience allows more money to be spent on the game as a whole. My argument is simply that the items listed in #1 are fundamentally incompatible with multiplayer (and, by extension, PvP), and that if you value those items above all else then it makes perfect sense to oppose the includsion of PvP in any shpae or form.
To be fair, I'm NOT saying the developers can't do it. I'm NOT saying they shouldn't. I'm NOT saying the engine canna take any more, cap'n.
I am saying, "Where is the money in it?". PVP takes nurturing, balancing, integrating new powers, patching holes, fixing brokenly good tactics; their business model seems to be for-fee DLC. If I'm spending $20 on DLC, but getting $5 of content and $15 of PVP additions, I won't be a customer very long. So how does all this new proposed PVP stuff get paid for?
My position is that the developer CAN do it (with difficulty, as discussed), and that there IS money in it (lots of money, actually), but they should NOT do it (because it is fundamentally incompatible with the BG-style of gameplay).
Honestly, I suspect that a stand-alone PvP module (as discussed in this thread), with no attempt at balancing classes or items, would sell quite well as a $5 DLC -- and drive sales of BG1:EE up by a significant amount (25% wouldn't surprise me).
Of course, having done that, then there would be further changes to support PvP in BG2:EE, as the developers respond to feedback from the new (expanded) customer base. My expectation is that some effort would be made to re-balance the classes (mostly by adding equipment, due to contractual limitations), pause options optimized for PvP would be added, and PvP would be added (as an option!) to the core game.
Having done that, then I would expect more extensive changes in the theoretical BG3 (or other original game written by Overhaul Games). Most likely, the ability to access inventory while the game is paused would be removed altogether (even in single player), considerable effort would be expended to ensure that the classes balanced against one another, and options / features (more quickbar slots, additional target options) would be added to make playing the game without pausing feasible.
After that, I would expect full party control to be eliminated (see NWN) and likely the addition of twitch play elements (if you aren't there when the blow lands, then you never take damage). Somewhere around this time the title will become a dual console / PC title, and there will be a number of compromises that result from that as well (elimination / minimization of the isometric view).
If I didn't think that PvP would be a financial winner for Overhaul Games, I wouldn't bother to argue against it...
Is there enough demand to pay the bills? I don't know. (Polls on these forums run about 2:1 against.) There may be a sizable demand for PVP games, as you say; but just as hamburgers are the most popular food, that doesn't mean all restaurants should be hamburger joints. Me, I want pizza.
In regards to the validity of the polls, @GueulEclator is 100% accurate in pointing out that the current sample is VERY biased (in favor of traditional, old-style, RPG players) and that the long-term success of Overhaul Games (and BG) depends primarily on users that have never played Baldur's Gate.
My fondest hope is that there are enough of these new users to support the franchise WITHOUT making gameplay changes. My greatest fear is that @GueulEclator is correct, and only by adding PvP will we see sufficient sales to justify a BG:3.
But there is already PVP in Baldur's Gate. You can only do 3v3, though, and not full party of 6 vs. another full party.
You can target allies with attacks and spells and all that nonsense. The only things you couldn't utilize are spells that effect enemies only, like Sleep or Horrid Wilting.
Also proper PVP requires proper mechanism. A PVP mod would go with PVP exclusive mechanism (won't affect singleplayer) to make the experience much smoother.
The Pause can be easily fixed , there are a lot of solutions to come up with. Some spells would be balanced a little bit, ad some other mechanism too.
Spell balance and new mechanism wouldn't really take that much time to implement (spell balance is really quick) and mechanism are simple, small fixes.
There can also be more variety : dungeon race, battle...