While I respect your opinion, mine is different. That's just one annoyance that might even be remedied one day, and it's not enough to outweigh and pull down the entire package of enhancements brought by this enhanced edition. I also want this feature get added too though, and it's a good addition as a matter of fact.
I would hope that some small changes to dual wielding could come along as well. For example, I will sometimes play a Dwarf that dual wields axes. However, I cannot use a throwing axe while having an axe in my offhand. If it's really an issue that I'm holding something that's not a shield in my offhand while throwing a weapon ( or using a sling ), then this UI change would greatly compensate for that. The fact that I can't switch to a throwing axe / sling while dual weilding ( without pausing and manually removing items ) makes me not want to play this style of character as much.
" the ability to change your hotkey setup on the hotbar would be great. Again something similar to Icewind Dale 2 could be implemented, where you right click the icon and it scrolls through different actions that you can change your icon to" This! Going from Icewind Dale 2 to Enchanced Edition I really miss the ability to customize quickslots. Make it so that weapon/spell/item/ability quickslots can be changed into whichever of these you need the most, please
I can't tell you how disappointed I was that the BGEE guys did nothing with this - or indeed did nothing with the interface whatsoever except re-draw it. I would have thrown the whole damn thing out and done it again had I the ability.
I actually made myself an awesome patch for GemRB (http://www.gemrb.org/) where you could access any weapon or inventory item without faffing around with the ugly inventory screen. Right then Left clicking a weapon slot would change your main hand weapon, right clicking it would change your off hand weapon or shield. Choosing a bow or a staff would automatically drop your off hand weapon or shield. Any ammo was selectable from the main screen, not just the 3 quiver slots. I think it was too quick and dirty to be included in the main release, but damn did I feel like I had just punched those interface designers in their smug faces...
I stand in affirmation of a similar need for being able to switch weapons. Yup, so it's hard to do. Hopefully this doesn't discourage the devs from actually doing it.
Ideally, I'd like to see a set of Main Hand buttons as they exist now (consistent with the number of items slots the player has for a main hand weapon in the paperdoll), and two Off Hand buttons (which would be replicated as slots on the paper doll). A third for Rangers or Fighter types would be nice, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.
That way, you could have an example such as: MH1 -> Longbow +1 (2H) MH2 -> Warhammer +2 (1H) MH3 -> Spider's Bane (2H)
OH1 -> Mace +1 (1H) OH2 -> Medium Shield +1 (1H)
...If I click on MH1, I'd have the longbow equipped. Seeing as it is 'illegal' to have anything in the offhand, those options would be greyed out and remain unselected (and nothing would be held in the offhand) ...If I click on MH2, I'd have the warhammer equipped. The OH1 would automagically be selected, meaning I am, by default, holding the mace in the offhand. But on my toolbar the shield would still be selectable. ...If I click on MH3, I'd have the two-handed weapon active, and the offhand selections would be greyed out again.
Obviously, this means the toolbar needs to be juggled around, and some classes might be a little short on buttons - not an insurmountable problem, but at least graphically it is doable.
The idea is to avoid creating "weapon sets" as this would be diverting away from the paperdoll to manage your loadout. In addition, it averts the problem of having to have unique weapons for each set (so if I use my warhammer and mace in one set, I can't then make a warhammer and longsword UNLESS I have a second warhammer to place in the second set.)
As for the how to code and implement it? Well, I'm hoping the way that you call the variable of "what is in my main hand" already with the toolbar buttons can be translated across to the second hand as a new argument. Whether that can be done is completely unknown to me. Because you are managing the selection from the toolbar, you're already using an interface that exists.
As for the people who are saying "It's not realistic" and "There should be a penalty".... fiddlesticks. If you don't want to use a feature such as this, then don't. It's that easy. For those who have played tabletop games: the one example I can state is the "standard action" to retrieve an item in D&D. Let's just get the mechanics of switching the offhand sorted out first. Once that's done, ask the mod community for an option to gimp you if you want it. As for dropping it, could you imagine forgetting to pick up a dropped weapon in an instanced "Waylaid By Enemies" map and lose it forever?
But my advice is to not make stuff too complicated. Get the thing working first. Then, either use it if you want it or don't use it if you don't like it.
Further note: Notably one cannot dual wield while a sling is equipped in one of the Main Hand slots. Okay, so if you click on your sling, it should probably count as a two handed missile weapon like a bow, and just deselect the offhand. (Personally, I can't ever see someone using a sling while holding a shield unless they have a bag of bullets hanging off the shield itself, but that's not the point - if we group all launchers as "Two Handed Missile Weapons" it means that the coding would probably be easier.). To this end, bucklers may be allowed to be used with any missile weapon to distinguish them in use from Small Shields (apart from the missile cover, of course).
As for the people who are saying "It's not realistic" and "There should be a penalty".... fiddlesticks. If you don't want to use a feature such as this, then don't. It's that easy. For those who have played tabletop games: the one example I can state is the "standard action" to retrieve an item in D&D.
But why shouldn't there be a penalty? The styles are balanced a certain way with a particular interface in mind... as long as you're suggesting to change things, why not change them in a reasoned fashion?
This paragraph betrays the post as just another powergamer asking for the devs to improve his preferred powergaming tactic. I don't know any tabletop DM who wouldn't apply some kind of penalty in this circumstance. This game isn't like a silly shooter where you can carry 12 different sidearms and rifles and machine guns and instantly switch between them. It's supposed to model the tabletop game.
Just sayin'...
Nope.
1) Penalty in tabletop games (as I have played many) is a 'standard action' in many cases. Switching simply means you cannot attack this turn with it. This mechanic isn't implemented in BG AFAIK as it is with the primary weapon switching, so the application of a penalty to switch offhands or to two-hands is pointless. So the "Reasoned Fashion" you are suggesting is moot. I simply want it to remain the same. Feel free to correct me - is there is a penalty? Then just apply that exact same penalty on the offhand as well. I'd be fine with that, as you're not messing with anything beyond that.
2) The ability to switch primary versus offhand is not a matter of "style balancing". If I can stow a 2H Sword and whip out a longbow and commence firing off a handful of arrows in the next round, then I fail to see how I can't slip two daggers into my belt scabbards (taking care not to just slice my belt off of course and dropping my trousers) and do the same thing. If this is fine, then we get to a point where weapons get progressively bigger and you have to draw a line in the sand for when it becomes "OK" and when "Nope, too big or awkward". How on earth do I stow a Flail, Scimitar or Katana when I have a Large Shield equipped and I want to grab out a Longsword? No restrictions there, at least nothing that can't be applied to two weapons.
3) Weapon switching was bandied about as a post-release update. It hasn't happened. I'm interested in the "How-To". Everyone jumps in wanting to muck about adding all these penalties - just keep it simple. No sense in complicating things by adding yet another six thousand items of code on top of the intended change which may introduce bugs to other parts of the game. Then, once it works, add an optional rule for "I can't bend the laws of physics" for those of you who want some sort of penalty. I certainly don't, reasons already outlined above.
4) Further to that, it isn't powergaming. It's streamlining a process which one has to do with multiple clicks and diving into inventory screens. It's tedious and annoying, and I would far prefer it to be achievable with one click (or two...) without stopping the action. Every. Time. I. Get. Into. Combat.
5) I'm still astonished why people *want* a broad-stroke penalty introduced into any new features. Just because one individual would like to start injecting real-world physical penalties randomly into a game whenever they like, does not mean that everyone will want to accept restrictions imposed by a vocal minority. That's what modding is all about; that's the best testbed for this kind of stuff. If everyone agrees, they will download your mod. Odds are, if this whole weapon switching was released, with a companion separate mod for your penalty, the vanilla switching mod would go nuts, and very few people would bother with the penalty, no matter how well it is 'sold' as a realistic representation of the mechanic.
All of that - especially "this here is appropriate for the base game but that there is appropriate for modding" - is 100% arbitrary and just reflects your personal preferences.
Not really. A more robust, streamlined interface is appropriate for any game at any time, and since you're under no obligation to utilize the improvement there's literally no downside for you or anyone else. The addition of weapon sets and a quick-switch option to the UI would make the game objectively better without hurting anyone in any way.
These penalties you suggest, on the other hand, are NOT an objective improvement. They're just a change, and most likely they're a change that would only appeal to a small segment of the player base. Consequently they would be better as a mod.
I tend to play archers who use single-handed and 2-handed weapons, and front-line melee fighters who dual-wield. Why? The interface incentivizes that. And the various skill bonuses & penalties were defined when the interface was a certain way.
I'm sorry, but that's silly. Would you accept it if a DM opted to incentivize playing as a paladin by making non-paladins sit on the floor or write with their off-hands? No, you wouldn't, because that's not part of the game. The DM is supposed to help you get immersed in the game, not distract you with random nonsense. Yet here you are arguing that the UI should play favorites by making some legal choices too inconvenient to bother with.
A user interface isn't supposed to incentivize a particular play style by making the alternative style an inconvenient pain in the ass, and if it does then it's POORLY DESIGNED.
Change the interface and you remove any incentive to use those other styles like SWS and S&S. They will go from less-powerful-but-more-convenient to utterly useless. Put aside the fact that it is utterly contrary to the reality of melee wespon use; from a game design standpoint, having options be utterly useless is a bad thing. So from a game design standpoint, why not alter the bonuses & penalties to add new incentives to use those styles, while also improving the interface to reduce the risk of RSI for people who demand archers who also dual-wield? How is that not the optimal solution here?
With regard to incentives, as I said above, if the UI is playing favorites then it's broken. You seem like a role-player. What's with all this meta-gaming nonsense?
With regard to reality, I'm not sure how that's relevant. Fighting a running battle with a bunch of hobgoblins while carrying 350 pounds of crap is utterly contrary to reality. So is healing a massive wound by resting in the woods for a week. Ditto with regard to fighting a dragon, being an elf, and casting a spell. I guess this game just isn't realistic. I can live with that. Still, if adding a penalty is important to enough people then someone will do it in a mod.
With regard to optimal solutions, making an objective improvement to the game is optimal. Improving the UI makes the game objectively better. Adding a penalty to please a handful of hardcore players does not. Thus the former is optimal, and the addition of the latter is not.
First of all, the game already adds a penalty - is that so bad? Do you have a feature request to remove it? Of course not. Penalties and bonuses are two sides of the same coin. A game uses both in the right places, or it will be horribly boring.
Second, who says there has to be more penalties? Someone gave and example based on realism (horror of horrors, I know) but it was just one example. How about: - S&S style also grants a shield bash attack? - 2H style grants more powerful attacks that can stun enemies for a second or two? - SW style grants a parrying ability that reduces the APR of enemies attacking you?
Those would be super cool, and would take nothing away from dual-wielding. And they're just more examples, maybe not even very good ones. Why not use our imaginations to make the game more interesting and fun?
I'm pretty sure that it was you saying there should be more penalties, but I generally agree with your most recent post so I guess it's a moot point.
I like the changes that you suggest, but I think that the weaknesses of SW, S&S, and 2H could be (and most likely already have been) addressed with a mod. The UI issue, on the other hand, seems to be something that a developer would have to tackle. And if you're trying to convince a developer to do something your best bet is to keep it simple and not ask for stuff you don't need.
Either way, after an hour of Googling I'm getting the strong impression that a UI improvement is never going to happen, so I guess our opinions don't matter. Oh well.
This is one of those features I absolutely expect to be there when buying *enhanced* edition released in 2013; nothing was enhanced at release except for 3 npc and BP before 1.3 added some nice features. This should have been included in the base game.
This is one of those features I absolutely expect to be there when buying *enhanced* edition released in 2013; nothing was enhanced at release except for 3 npc and BP before 1.3 added some nice features. This should have been included in the base game.
If it were so simple it would have been done already.
Yeah this one is not so much a question of "do they feel like doing it" as much as "it is not possible to do."
The GUI functionality hasn't improved since 1998 because it is hard-coded in a game that was made in 1998. Enhanced or not, this is a 1998 game. You want a 2915 game, you can play Pillars of Eternity. (And, let me know how customizable its UI is )
The Devs have spoken on this multiple times - the hard coding won't really let them give what we're asking for. NWN was super strong in this area - you defined your quick slot buttons by dragging things there, and they accounted for both hands. Unfortunately, BG doesn't allow for that, and won't.
I do not know how it was managed for Icewind Dale, but suspect that it was because the engine was significantly different (different revision of AD&D rule set). It might be possible to remake BG into the IWD version of Infinity Engine, but that would be a huge undertaking and would completely change the experience for the player (classes, feats, etc).
The two major UI things I would like to change is the fore-mentioned thing about being able to switch from 2handed weapon to 2weapon without going in the inventory, and incidentally allow the possibility of using weapons like firetooth or dwarven thrower along with another weapon when using them as melee. And one other thing that is most annoying when playing BP2: Cleric/Thief has to click on special abilities button to get the lock picks and pickpocket. I would personnally love either a button that is not locked by BP2 dead magic and that regroups all of the thieving skills (Clicking on it opens a menu with 3choices; lock picks, detect traps, hide in shadows, much like spellcasters). Or even simplier: swapping the open lock button with the turn undead button. I mean, one needs the former more often than the latter, and the former is necessary in BP2 while the latter is not.
The only things holding this game back are the action bars and the lack of custom classes. If you had more multi class/dual class options and a action bar like IWD 2 it would be allot more fun to play for role play purposes and ease of use. A barbarian/thief swapping between dual wield and a bow would be fun to play. Is that overpowered? who cares Ive already finished the game normally how about being allowed to play the game differently. If you can already go into the inventory during a battle and swap weapons why not just make it something you can change on the action bar so you can set it up the way you want. If its really gonna cost allot of money and time to make these changes why not make it an expansion option? Personally Id pay for it. You might get allot more return fans as well.
Comments
This! Going from Icewind Dale 2 to Enchanced Edition I really miss the ability to customize quickslots. Make it so that weapon/spell/item/ability quickslots can be changed into whichever of these you need the most, please
I actually made myself an awesome patch for GemRB (http://www.gemrb.org/) where you could access any weapon or inventory item without faffing around with the ugly inventory screen. Right then Left clicking a weapon slot would change your main hand weapon, right clicking it would change your off hand weapon or shield. Choosing a bow or a staff would automatically drop your off hand weapon or shield. Any ammo was selectable from the main screen, not just the 3 quiver slots. I think it was too quick and dirty to be included in the main release, but damn did I feel like I had just punched those interface designers in their smug faces...
I stand in affirmation of a similar need for being able to switch weapons.
Yup, so it's hard to do. Hopefully this doesn't discourage the devs from actually doing it.
Ideally, I'd like to see a set of Main Hand buttons as they exist now (consistent with the number of items slots the player has for a main hand weapon in the paperdoll), and two Off Hand buttons (which would be replicated as slots on the paper doll). A third for Rangers or Fighter types would be nice, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.
That way, you could have an example such as:
MH1 -> Longbow +1 (2H)
MH2 -> Warhammer +2 (1H)
MH3 -> Spider's Bane (2H)
OH1 -> Mace +1 (1H)
OH2 -> Medium Shield +1 (1H)
...If I click on MH1, I'd have the longbow equipped. Seeing as it is 'illegal' to have anything in the offhand, those options would be greyed out and remain unselected (and nothing would be held in the offhand)
...If I click on MH2, I'd have the warhammer equipped. The OH1 would automagically be selected, meaning I am, by default, holding the mace in the offhand. But on my toolbar the shield would still be selectable.
...If I click on MH3, I'd have the two-handed weapon active, and the offhand selections would be greyed out again.
Obviously, this means the toolbar needs to be juggled around, and some classes might be a little short on buttons - not an insurmountable problem, but at least graphically it is doable.
The idea is to avoid creating "weapon sets" as this would be diverting away from the paperdoll to manage your loadout. In addition, it averts the problem of having to have unique weapons for each set (so if I use my warhammer and mace in one set, I can't then make a warhammer and longsword UNLESS I have a second warhammer to place in the second set.)
As for the how to code and implement it? Well, I'm hoping the way that you call the variable of "what is in my main hand" already with the toolbar buttons can be translated across to the second hand as a new argument. Whether that can be done is completely unknown to me. Because you are managing the selection from the toolbar, you're already using an interface that exists.
As for the people who are saying "It's not realistic" and "There should be a penalty".... fiddlesticks. If you don't want to use a feature such as this, then don't. It's that easy. For those who have played tabletop games: the one example I can state is the "standard action" to retrieve an item in D&D. Let's just get the mechanics of switching the offhand sorted out first. Once that's done, ask the mod community for an option to gimp you if you want it. As for dropping it, could you imagine forgetting to pick up a dropped weapon in an instanced "Waylaid By Enemies" map and lose it forever?
But my advice is to not make stuff too complicated. Get the thing working first. Then, either use it if you want it or don't use it if you don't like it.
Further note:
Notably one cannot dual wield while a sling is equipped in one of the Main Hand slots. Okay, so if you click on your sling, it should probably count as a two handed missile weapon like a bow, and just deselect the offhand. (Personally, I can't ever see someone using a sling while holding a shield unless they have a bag of bullets hanging off the shield itself, but that's not the point - if we group all launchers as "Two Handed Missile Weapons" it means that the coding would probably be easier.). To this end, bucklers may be allowed to be used with any missile weapon to distinguish them in use from Small Shields (apart from the missile cover, of course).
1) Penalty in tabletop games (as I have played many) is a 'standard action' in many cases. Switching simply means you cannot attack this turn with it. This mechanic isn't implemented in BG AFAIK as it is with the primary weapon switching, so the application of a penalty to switch offhands or to two-hands is pointless. So the "Reasoned Fashion" you are suggesting is moot. I simply want it to remain the same.
Feel free to correct me - is there is a penalty? Then just apply that exact same penalty on the offhand as well. I'd be fine with that, as you're not messing with anything beyond that.
2) The ability to switch primary versus offhand is not a matter of "style balancing". If I can stow a 2H Sword and whip out a longbow and commence firing off a handful of arrows in the next round, then I fail to see how I can't slip two daggers into my belt scabbards (taking care not to just slice my belt off of course and dropping my trousers) and do the same thing. If this is fine, then we get to a point where weapons get progressively bigger and you have to draw a line in the sand for when it becomes "OK" and when "Nope, too big or awkward". How on earth do I stow a Flail, Scimitar or Katana when I have a Large Shield equipped and I want to grab out a Longsword? No restrictions there, at least nothing that can't be applied to two weapons.
3) Weapon switching was bandied about as a post-release update. It hasn't happened. I'm interested in the "How-To". Everyone jumps in wanting to muck about adding all these penalties - just keep it simple. No sense in complicating things by adding yet another six thousand items of code on top of the intended change which may introduce bugs to other parts of the game. Then, once it works, add an optional rule for "I can't bend the laws of physics" for those of you who want some sort of penalty. I certainly don't, reasons already outlined above.
4) Further to that, it isn't powergaming. It's streamlining a process which one has to do with multiple clicks and diving into inventory screens. It's tedious and annoying, and I would far prefer it to be achievable with one click (or two...) without stopping the action. Every. Time. I. Get. Into. Combat.
5) I'm still astonished why people *want* a broad-stroke penalty introduced into any new features. Just because one individual would like to start injecting real-world physical penalties randomly into a game whenever they like, does not mean that everyone will want to accept restrictions imposed by a vocal minority. That's what modding is all about; that's the best testbed for this kind of stuff. If everyone agrees, they will download your mod. Odds are, if this whole weapon switching was released, with a companion separate mod for your penalty, the vanilla switching mod would go nuts, and very few people would bother with the penalty, no matter how well it is 'sold' as a realistic representation of the mechanic.
These penalties you suggest, on the other hand, are NOT an objective improvement. They're just a change, and most likely they're a change that would only appeal to a small segment of the player base. Consequently they would be better as a mod. I'm sorry, but that's silly. Would you accept it if a DM opted to incentivize playing as a paladin by making non-paladins sit on the floor or write with their off-hands? No, you wouldn't, because that's not part of the game. The DM is supposed to help you get immersed in the game, not distract you with random nonsense. Yet here you are arguing that the UI should play favorites by making some legal choices too inconvenient to bother with.
A user interface isn't supposed to incentivize a particular play style by making the alternative style an inconvenient pain in the ass, and if it does then it's POORLY DESIGNED. With regard to incentives, as I said above, if the UI is playing favorites then it's broken. You seem like a role-player. What's with all this meta-gaming nonsense?
With regard to reality, I'm not sure how that's relevant. Fighting a running battle with a bunch of hobgoblins while carrying 350 pounds of crap is utterly contrary to reality. So is healing a massive wound by resting in the woods for a week. Ditto with regard to fighting a dragon, being an elf, and casting a spell. I guess this game just isn't realistic. I can live with that. Still, if adding a penalty is important to enough people then someone will do it in a mod.
With regard to optimal solutions, making an objective improvement to the game is optimal. Improving the UI makes the game objectively better. Adding a penalty to please a handful of hardcore players does not. Thus the former is optimal, and the addition of the latter is not.
I like the changes that you suggest, but I think that the weaknesses of SW, S&S, and 2H could be (and most likely already have been) addressed with a mod. The UI issue, on the other hand, seems to be something that a developer would have to tackle. And if you're trying to convince a developer to do something your best bet is to keep it simple and not ask for stuff you don't need.
Either way, after an hour of Googling I'm getting the strong impression that a UI improvement is never going to happen, so I guess our opinions don't matter. Oh well.
yes plz, needs doing as the gui funtionality is looking archaic. Basically hasnt improved since 1998!
Even everquest, makes this gui look OLD !
`Customizable Hotbar ( Quickslots` ...at least plz
I do not know how it was managed for Icewind Dale, but suspect that it was because the engine was significantly different (different revision of AD&D rule set). It might be possible to remake BG into the IWD version of Infinity Engine, but that would be a huge undertaking and would completely change the experience for the player (classes, feats, etc).
And one other thing that is most annoying when playing BP2: Cleric/Thief has to click on special abilities button to get the lock picks and pickpocket. I would personnally love either a button that is not locked by BP2 dead magic and that regroups all of the thieving skills (Clicking on it opens a menu with 3choices; lock picks, detect traps, hide in shadows, much like spellcasters). Or even simplier: swapping the open lock button with the turn undead button. I mean, one needs the former more often than the latter, and the former is necessary in BP2 while the latter is not.