Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!


We have the Black Pits, which are great.

What about some player VS player action?

It would likely be different rooms with different levels. For example, "Level 5-7 characters only" all the way through to the higher levels. Also, to prevent people from having uber stats, there should be a stat point cap of 80 points maximum per character. No more.

Every player starts naked and buys a few basic items from the merchants before the fight (or, barring that, depending on the class, the character starts the game with pre-set items.) For example, a ranger could start with studded leather, a bow, and whatever weapon he chose in his proficiencies. Long sword, or spear, whatever. Kind of like when you start a new game in TOB, the starting items are attuned to your chosen class.

This would not only be fun, but it would enable players to learn from one another about the best way to manage combat tactically, either 1 VS 1, all the way through to 6 VS 6. What spells to cast and when, who to focus on first and why, micromanagement and party management.

Could there ever be something introduced like this?



  • O_BruceO_Bruce Member Posts: 2,761
    I don't know if something like this could be ever implemented, even thought concept is pretty interesting. One thing is for sure: we can forget about 1v1 balance. Lvl. 1 mage can win with 1 lvl fighter only by pure luck (ex. save vs. spell against sleep). Level 10 thief will lose against level 10 figter, since in open fight there is no place to hide or time to lay some traps. There is also possibility of overusing pause durning fight, which can be frustrating at times.

    I like the concept of learning from eachother, so you have my like. Hope that someone more competent than me can make the possibility (or lack of it) of deathmatch clear.

  • Edwin_OdesseironEdwin_Odesseiron Member Posts: 226
    You're right about the 1VS1 thing. But for those types of matches, it would be class VS class (mage VS mage, or fighter VS fighter etc).

    Fighter VS Fighter would just be luck-based, who gets the better rolls. This would be much better for developing knowledge of mage/cleric spells (which is the hardest thing for a lot of players to grasp), and party management as a whole.

    Also, the pause thing can be addressed by giving each player no more than 10 pauses per fight, for example, so players would have to use it wisely, not just pause for the tiniest of things.

  • O_BruceO_Bruce Member Posts: 2,761

    You're right about the 1VS1 thing. But for those types of matches, it would be class VS class (mage VS mage, or fighter VS fighter etc).

    Fighter VS Fighter would just be luck-based, who gets the better rolls. This would be much better for developing knowledge of mage/cleric spells (which is the hardest thing for a lot of players to grasp), and party management as a whole.

    Also, the pause thing can be addressed by giving each player no more than 10 pauses per fight, for example, so players would have to use it wisely, not just pause for the tiniest of things.

    Good, you've thought carefuly about your idea. Best of luck.

  • Edwin_OdesseironEdwin_Odesseiron Member Posts: 226
    Thank you. I always think carefully about my ideas.

    I doubt this will happen, though. I just thought it would be an interesting idea and would hope the devs consider it as a possibility.

  • CrevsDaakCrevsDaak Member Posts: 7,147
    Mage vs Mage, the one who casts Time Stop first wons because of cheese.

  • Edwin_OdesseironEdwin_Odesseiron Member Posts: 226
    I disagree. Whatever advantage the initial Time Stop mage gains can be countered when the second mage casts it. Time Stop isnt't the be-all-end-all mage spell.

    Mage VS Mage would possibly be the best match up among these (certainly in terms of thinking), but this whole idea was still more focused on party battles anyway.

  • CrevsDaakCrevsDaak Member Posts: 7,147
    I don't think so, a mage casting Time Stop can go and kill the other mage in melee if he casts Tenser's and Improved Haste before, also, you can easily use a "key mapped contingency" to put 3 Sunfires to target self when see enemy, run near the other mage and he will be dead. Or just use Fingers of Death after a Greater Malison or just throw someting to interrupt the other mages spell casting while you are in a Time Stop.
    Also, lots of players will be like lvl40 F\M\T, and use the most cheesiest things they know, like I will do if they make this.

  • Edwin_OdesseironEdwin_Odesseiron Member Posts: 226
    That's why there's restrictions. I'd design this in such a way to prevent people like you from ever ruining the concept.

    If Time Stop got to be that much of a problem (again, I don't think it would be), it's as simple as banning the spell. Even if you got off an improved Haste AND Tensers AND managed to cast Time Stop, the other mage could still have protections up (protection from weapons, stoneskin, etc). But honestly, what are you thinking? You think that while you're casting these spells the other mage would just be sitting there doing nothing? No, he'd be focused on you and preventing your spellcasting/casting his own.

    Furthermore: No multi-classes. At all. Single class only, possibly even no kits (though that I'd have to think about a little further.) As I explained, the 1 VS 1 thing is just more for a bit of fun, this is more focused on party skirmishes. Each member of the party has his role to play, so making a one-man army such as a F/T/M goes against the entire purpose. Thus, it would not be allowed.

    Contigencies could never be set up because there's no resting. Players would select their memorized spells prior to the battle, and the battle would then begin.

    In lots of encounters during the game, luck is a factor. Over the years how many times have you reloaded in a battle you had pretty much won, but the enemy mage got in a lucky finger of death or wail of the banshee, killing a few party members (or you?) That's part and parcel of D & D. Any dice-based game has a luck factor involved, and that adds to the fun of it.

  • CrevsDaakCrevsDaak Member Posts: 7,147
    There is no need to rest nor anything to set a "key mapped contingency", they are contigency you can create because of mega-bug.

    Also, I don't want to start a war, but I want to taking out spells annoys me, but it will be a good thing to do, because some thing are Over Powered. And with those restrictions, you've made me agree with you :P

  • ryuken87ryuken87 Member Posts: 563
    I like the idea, but there's no need to stipulate what restrictions there would be (if any) at this point. Nobody currently plays BG PvP to a high level (to my knowledge) so there's no way to say what's too powerful in a hypothetical metagame.

    If such a thing were to happen (and I doubt it will outside of a very ambitious mod) then just start by getting it working properly and stable, then worry about balance.

  • Edwin_OdesseironEdwin_Odesseiron Member Posts: 226
    I don't propose anything half-assed. Rebuttals to the idea will come in the form of "oh, but this will suck due to X reason." Therefore, the entire idea must be proposed, or not at all. Rebuttals need to be addressed. If it was to be implemented, then I obviously agree with you, one small step at a time, with an "end goal" as the long-term plan.

    However, saying "let's just do it" with no thought of what we could work on/restrict is short-sighted and would immediately be rejected. So the idea needs to be proposed in its entirety.

  • KratokKratok Member Posts: 42
    edited December 2013
    While possible, it would be unavoidably be quite awkward due to the 6 player limit with all in the same party, pausing and all. By default many spells wouldn't work as they only work on enemies, players would be able to see each others exact hitpoints, buffs and debuffs, etc.. Summons I guess could be used, but you'd have to micromanage them to attack the right targets as they wouldn't be hostile by default.

    I'd also guess you can't code in a restriction to limit the number of pauses per player, although I have little knowledge of IE modding. If not, it's possible there may be some workaround though like giving all players 10 uses of some instant special ability that has a timestop-like effect on everyone, including the user. If a coded restriction wouldn't work out, I guess it could be tested without pausing, although it would certainly be quite hectic for casters.

    It would be interesting to try out, but I doubt it would work very well. It would definitely eventually need balancing, but I agree that you'd need a working "prototype" first. It could possibly also benefit from some simple additional goals in team battles, like capturing (trapped/locked) objectives or something.

    Edit: I was thinking I was in the modding forums, so also based my thoughts on what is currently possible. Of course if engine restrictions were removed on things like the 6 player limit it would potentially work a lot better, but I recall the developers saying that it would require significant rewriting of the engine and as such won't happen.

    Post edited by Kratok on
  • Edwin_OdesseironEdwin_Odesseiron Member Posts: 226
    Yes, the players would not see each other's stats, and would be hostile toward one another (red circles), so definitely classed as enemies. All spells would work against them.

    The opposition player would just appear as enemies do in the game. As I said, I didn't expect this to go through, but it would certainly be interesting.

    Does a D&D tactics type game exist? Even a single player one? (Aside from the PsP game, of course.)

  • FlashburnFlashburn Member Posts: 1,782
    The only thing I can think of for D&D PVP is Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2. I remember a long while back that I played a multiplayer module called Battle of the Dragons which was basically a Dota2/LoL type of game mode. Creeps, guard towers, the ancients/dragons - the works. I always got stomped by archers and Shadowdancers (goddamn HiPS) because I liked to play dwarven BEEFCAKE tank characters.

    It'd be neat to see mage duels in BG but I don't think the engine is even capable of doing PVP in any robust capacity.

  • bbearbbear Member Posts: 1,180
    I dont think there should be a player pause at all. At the beginning of every round, there should be a game pause of 30 sec. Each player should have enough time to plan and execute commands.

  • Edwin_OdesseironEdwin_Odesseiron Member Posts: 226
    Not a bad idea, but 30 seconds is far too long. Maybe 10. But I think the pause restriction would work better anyway, otherwise there would be more pauses than gameplay. A round is only 6 seconds, after all.

  • CrevsDaakCrevsDaak Member Posts: 7,147
    Yeah, but you tend to pause to center a fireball in the correct place, not to cast Blur, so maybe 10 seconds are only enough to burn your party, or if you don't have one, to burn yourself. And about Archer, they are very OP, then we have wizards, I could easily kill a lvl40 fighter with a lvl9 wizard, and with a lvl31 wizard I can destroy the world, build it and create Spelljammer starships to visit other Planes and travel through time to say hi to the Nameless One that is a lvl127 mage but I still more powerful? I think I would like to slay noobs, and many others will do the same as I. Imagine if I came with a custom script? It will force lvl9 spells to be cast by my lvl3 thief, making him impossible to beat, and if you want to remove that you'll need an entire new game, because that is inside the engine itself.

  • MordeusMordeus Member Posts: 460
    Having it as a player vs player feature accessed through multiplayer would be far too much trouble, probably only ending up as a novelty.

    However there needs to be a deathmatch arena in the main campaign. One where you can go fight monsters in tournaments or individual battles just for the fun of it. By the end of chapter 7, it would be nice to have something to fight once all the quests are completed. I may be in the minority but I don't like finishing SoA because I hate ToB and I don't want to keep on starting new games because that means doing the same quests over and over just to get to the good bits.

    There doesn't need to be a plot tied to it, if anything a deathmatch campaign without a plot is a welcome change. Instead you'd submit your team to a one off battle or a tournament competition. The tournament would sequester you into living quarters where you have to fight successive battles. As a bonus you could bet items or gold, that would factor into the prizes you win.

    There would be a number of tournaments to choose from, some being more melee orientated some more magical. As for the single battles, they would be more suited to boss like encounters. You would also have the option to do a solo tournament instead of fighting with a full party.

    Having it in SoA instead of BG1 or ToB would be the best option. Some of the merchants or characters from The Black Pits could feature, with them eventually forming their own 'democratic' Black Pits.

    I think the best location would be the Illithids Lair located in the Underdark since it has the deathmatch facilities. All you would have to do is clear the map out, and then mention to an enterprising Duergar that such a facility is now vacant. Then when you return the place would have become inhabited by warriors from the Underdark ready to battle.

    Alternatively if using that area violates the contract, then you could simply add a stairwell to the Underdark map or have a location added on the world map that directs you to the Black Pits from BG1:EE.

    I think this would be the easiest solution to a deathmatch idea. So easy that it could be modded...

  • MordeusMordeus Member Posts: 460
    Yes, but without the lengthy storyline (that is sequestered outside SoA and ToB) and with more choice over who and what you fight, and when you fight it. It would be much nicer to be able to do a quick battle and then exit the arena instead of having to import your fighters, watch a bunch of cutscenes, fight the same battles over and over until you get to the one you like. The Black Pits formula as it currently stands has far too much baggage to sidestep to get to the quick 5 minute or so battle. It would be much nicer to have the whole thing more streamlined. Not to mention that everything with the Black Pits is linear, so you know what battles come when and what tactics to use for the experienced player. Would be nice to be surprised in a game where you count the number of random encounters on one hand.

    It would be like an arena map that generates random encounters that are truly random, aside from the bare rules and guidelines like what type of monster you'd fight. The Black Pits really is just a linear campaign dressed up in the setting of an arena, not a nonlinear battle arena that is without a campaign. It would be like a player vs computer battle simulator, the next best thing to having the infrastructure for player vs player.

    So the arena would ask you what sort of monsters you'd want to fight, and what difficulty. So if you chose underdark, you'd get a random number of beholders and mind flayers. Or if you chose Red Wizards, you'd get a random number of conjurers and necromancers. And if you chose extreme difficulty then they'd get a 10 level bonus onto their standard level. If you chose easy difficulty then they'd get a 10 level penalty on their standard level.

    It wouldn't really be a proper battle simulator since that would be difficult to implement retroactively. All it would take would be creating a whole lot of .cre files and spawn points, then creating the dialog trees. But I think it would be an easier undertaking than trying to implement online competitive play. Especially when getting the pre-existing multiplayer feature up and running was a pretty big challenge.

Sign In or Register to comment.