I lot of you seems to assume that PVP would take a lot of time to develop. How can you be so sure? I don't think any of you ever tried to implement it.
As far as I know, the only ones that should be allowed to say that are beamdog. And I never saw them commenting on the matter.
You just said it would be "easy" to implement on the first page, so you're speculating just the same. Though, to your credit, this is the first post I've seen where you didn't rage out like a subhuman. Kudos.
i voted dont care but the more i think about it the more i come to the conclusion, that it does not fit to bg1/2. they are clearly designed as PvE games. this is what their success is all about. Deep immersion into the atmosphere and storyline.
thinking about implementing this in a possinle bg3 is another thing. but even that is very hard to realize. just keep in mind that the vast majority love these games so much because of quests/dialogues/storyline/atmosphere. also i think many people are relaxed & like the option to pause the game during the battle. don't know if this maybe would be appropiate for pvp.
I'm on the fence on pvp. It could be good, it could be bad. I'd personally not really do much pvp(if at all), but doesn't mean it wouldn't be a fun thing to have none the less. Only problem I can see with PVP is balancing.
I lot of you seems to assume that PVP would take a lot of time to develop. How can you be so sure? I don't think any of you ever tried to implement it.
As far as I know, the only ones that should be allowed to say that are beamdog. And I never saw them commenting on the matter.
You just said it would be "easy" to implement on the first page, so you're speculating just the same. Though, to your credit, this is the first post I've seen where you didn't rage out like a subhuman. Kudos.
In the AMAA thread @TrentOster said that PvP in this engine would NOT be trivial due to the massive amount of hard coding....and that PvP is not on the radar for BG:EE so I guess that settles that.
voted against. never have been a fan of it but completely understand if other wish to take part. big reason for a "no" vote here being rather see resources used to better the over all game. pvp, while has it merits, really doesn't belong in something like BG imo. ~
PvP is not currently in our near-term plans. We looked into it and the amount of hardcoding in the engine is shocking.
-Trent
Which means that they were interested by the concept (''we looked into it''), but that a large amount of harcoding prevents them to do so with their current resources.
Hopefully, when they will have more resources, they might consider doing it (if BG EE is a success.
The debate is therefore closed for now, as we know that the feature isn't planned in the near future (leaving something for the far future).
I never even thought of PvP in BG before this thread, somehow I'd always missed those discussions on forums. While I don't mind if it's never actually done due to difficulty and such, it'd be interesting to see.
It seems most players think adding a PvP mode will change the story mode of the game. Going as far as bringing MMO into this. While it won't change the story mode, just makes you want to play through it more open eyed and it has nothing to do with MMO.
While everyone is free to have an opinion, such as PvP is not for BG. I'd applaud them if they at least looked in to it. Right now it's interesting votes. Especially if you don't understand the mode (stating MMO or it will ruin the game???). I've explained it more carefully in the Original topic, linked in this post.
I think one of the biggest rationales against PvP in BG is that AD&D, be it 1st edition, 2nd, 3rd or 4th is first and foremost about CoOperative multi-player not PvP. It was, is and should be Players vs the DM or PvE in WoW speak. The entire game system is built on the cooperating party model.
tl;dr: There are plenty of PvP games out there -- please go play one of them, and let us have one last chance to relive the glory days before we exit gaming forever.
The concern of the existing hard-core BG1 / BG2 fans isn't about adding PvP to BG1/BG2, per se -- the fear that we have (or, at least, I have) is "If we invite the PvP / MMORPG userbase to join the BG1/BG2 community, they will far out number us -- and therefore, they will be in a position to strongly influence FUTURE development decisions." Likely results of this influence would be the elimination of pause & play (not "PvP friendly"), "balancing classes" for PvP play, the elimination / reduction of "RPG mechanics" in favor "twitch-play mechanics", and finally reducing / eliminating the importance of party mechanics in favor of 3rd person shooter gameplay. You can see this evolution in action at Bioware (BG -> NWN -> DA / ME), as well as in the "RPG market" as a whole, as well -- there have been very few party based, pause-and-play (or turn based), strong RPG mechanics games produced in the last 5 years (compared to, say, 95-2000).
Now, if Overhaul games exclusive concern is maximizing the profit potential of their games, then yes, the should implement a PvP mode. It isn't even a hard decision -- for every fan of the BG1/BG2 series, there are dozens (perhaps even hundreds) of people who would purchase a third person fantasy game with a strong PvP component. By not including PvP, I'm sure that Overhaul Games realizes that they are dramatically reducing their potential userbase, possibly to the point where the game will not be successful at all, and certainly ensures that the game won't be as successful as it could have been. The decision not to go in the direction is a risk that they have chosen to take, as we ("the hardcore BG1 / BG2 fans") are hopeful that the release shows that there is a large enough "niche market" to support a gaming company. This is a big risk, obviously, and I applaud them for doing it and hope that it works out for everyone involved... But if I'm being realistic, I think the market is large enough to support the EE remakes (where 90% of the content is already "paid for" and therefore can be priced absurdly low for the amount of content included) but not new product development.
There are loads and loads of third-person fantasy games with a strong PvP component, from many different AAA companies to boot. I rather expect DA3 will fall into this bucket, and there is Diablo 3, various MMORPGs, and many, many, other examples. You (the PvP "crowd") have already won the war -- is it REALLY necessary to hunt down and ensure that NO examples of old-style gameplay remain? Even in a game that is a REMAKE of a game before the war started? Can't we have ONE gaming company of our own?
@MReed That is another thing I hadn't thought of. For example it is becoming harder and harder to find good turn based games, everything is going real time, distorting the whole Strategy concept of carefully thought out tactics and moves in favor of the RTS where eye candy and fast twitch muscle response is key.... Not saying they shouldn't make those kinds of games, but not to the extent that they squeeze out the people who developed the whole RPG and Strategy Genres to start with.
I think Player versus Player would be a good idea. The black bits would be a good area to attend such events. Party versus Party is viable and interesting
I dont see why luck is such a bad downside to fighting others? you have just as much chance as any other to win.
Yes Cheeseyness would probably rule over, but either avoid palying against them or have limitations on what classes can be in play, you cant have all wizards? I dont know but you find most games there are player who exploit the game and its mechanics to the edge.
There was an arena button for baldurs gate 2.
If you dont want to play player versus palyer, dont? I dont see why so many people are close minded about this feature? it is a viable feature that people actually wanted back in the day.
The voting doesnt prove that it should not be implemented because this is a forum full of people who liked the original, what about people who dont play the game and know about this forum? it could be a feature that could attract others into playing the game.
@Majoca It has already been reported by the Devs that there will be no PvP due to the hard coding in the engine.
As for your other comments about attracting the PvP crowd to the game...why? The game was VERY successful without out. The Enhanced edition can bring in good numbers without becoming a new and different game. If consumers want a PvP game someone will make one for them, this project is about BG making the original prettier and less buggy and easier to Mod. The whole argument for PvP is....lets make it a different game.
@immagikman : please read the devs post again : they said there won't be implementing PVP in the short term : at release.
That doesn't mean that they won't implement it in the long term once they have more resources (after the sales) to break the code.
That's true, but it also does not mean that they *will* implement PvP, and if they do, I imagine I speak for others in addition to myself when I say that I will have even more incentive to play with known friends only, and lose desire to branch out into the gaming community.
Why would I want to join a game when I know that some players in that game could say "The second Imoen frees me from my cage, I'm going to loot items from the table, gear up, then slaughter my comrades regardless of my class, alignment, background story, or stage in the game."
The concept of spending who knows how much time rolling a character only to have him killed does not seem very appealing, unless by PvP implementation we are actually referring more to some kind of stand-alone dueling mod/expansion/mission, which really has no place in the Bhaalspawn story, thus rendering every comment in the defense of "I want PvP in Baldur's Gate" null, void, and moot.
To put it in a tasteful way: If The Black Pits is considered just a side dish of the Bhaalspawn main course, then a PvP mode would just be a few drops of hot chili, to spice up the side dish.
How would the pause button work in PVP? I am frequently pausing during combat to get spells started in optimum time, grab that potion from my inventory, etc. Seems like that would be pretty awkward.
I think one of the biggest rationales against PvP in BG is that AD&D, be it 1st edition, 2nd, 3rd or 4th is first and foremost about CoOperative multi-player not PvP. It was, is and should be Players vs the DM or PvE in WoW speak. The entire game system is built on the cooperating party model.
@GueulEclator, you have made a lot of unsupported assertions, starting with "A lot of people think PVP would be fun. . .[I]t's something that the multiplayer community always wanted. . .” and have been proven wrong. When the poll numbers don't go your way, you say “[T]he vast majority of the people that lurks on these forums . . . do not represent the majority of player who will buy this game.” Based upon what facts, pray? Your gut instinct? You assume that the vast majority of people who buy this game with NO PVP advertised, will be PVPers?
You say (without any basis in experience or fact) “[I]t wouldn't take too much ressources to implement. . .” and get shot down again, when the developer himself announces that the amount of work to implement PVP is astonishing.
You talk a good game ... and maybe that's the PVPer in you, trying to intimidate your opponents into giving up. You may win the internets with this method, but that won't change reality for you.
The reality is: PVP is a lot of work (as I've been telling you and as confirmed by the devs), and for not much reward (as confirmed by the polls: PVPers are not the "vast majority"). The idea that they will suddenly rebuild the entire engine for PVP is slim to none.
though I understand your points, how would it turn into a different game, it would still be baldurs gate but with a black pit for PVP? it is a feature which adds something new and doesn't change the game from what it is? you say it was successful, yet most people who I know play games don't really know much about it, if at all? compared to a lot of games baldurs gate has but a minority who play it, hopefully this edition will increase its popularity tenfold.
Yes, Baldurs gate is about enhancing the experience, with less bugs, but also new content, so I don't see how adding pvp makes the game different, baldurs gate is about story, fighting parties, slaying monsters, the game allows players to band together to fight monsters kill npc parties and do the story, why not fighting other players in an arena/black pit?
It is a feature which could be implemented and I don't know what you talking about " there will be no PvP due to the hard coding in the engine." when PhillipDaigle one of the team members mentioned about Player versus Player being a potential update or something along those lines, I sent him a message supporting his idea.
I guess our opinions differ but don't try to put the argument for pvp into a category of "lets make it a different game." When that's not the case, for me, having pvp just adds another feature to a great game to continue its playability, not that it needs anymore as I still play it now.
@Majoca Im not against a mod to make PvP a feature. Or a DLC....Im just not wanting them to take time and energy from the Base product for release on the 18th just to include PvP....I dont like it but wouldn't dream of saying "No you cannot make it ever". That would not be my place.
Personally I dont think PvP had a place in AD&D but that is just me.
Personally I dont think PvP had a place in AD&D but that is just me.
Wasn't AD&D a multiplayer experience in the first place? A bunch of nerds (like me) gathering around a table and playing together. There was a great deal of PVP in AD&D, and the funniest moment were probably when players tried to outsmart each other.
Personally I dont think PvP had a place in AD&D but that is just me.
Wasn't AD&D a multiplayer experience in the first place? A bunch of nerds (like me) gathering around a table and playing together. There was a great deal of PVP in AD&D, and the funniest moment were probably when players tried to outsmart each other.
you may not understand the terminology... In todays parlance AD&D and D&D before it were PvE the party of real people against the Environment aka the Dungeon Master. it was not My party of real people against your party of real people.
What you describe is what happened when you had a really bad DM. In our groups we kicked people out who couldn't play nice with each other....the DM was all the Challenge we needed.
PvP in BGEE and BG2EE are not in the planning, it MIGHT be made as an option in BG3 but don't count on it. The engine is not built for it.
That's not true. The developers didn't said anything about BG2 EE.
They haven't even decided which feature they will implement in BG2EE.
They said it wasn't planned in the near-term plans. Near terms. That's not specific enough to say that it won't be included in some far away patch or BG2 EE.
They did say they were interested in PVP and the thing restraining them is that currently they lack the resources to change harcoded stuff. Currently. That means that once they have more resources (money) they may look into this.
That isnt to say there were not issues of a thief "aquiring" someones personal possessions or a Determined Cleric having to be bopped for being a little over zealous trying to convert the whole party but the MAIN focus was on the goal....if you were not an asset to the party you were kicked.
Absolutely not. First it would pull effort away from the core game. Second, the mechanics in dnd can be absurdly broken in an overpowered way. Just think of all the things we do in pve...if we had dedicated pvp, players would Bitch and moan for balance which would then detract from the pve experience, which is the core game.
Comments
thinking about implementing this in a possinle bg3 is another thing. but even that is very hard to realize. just keep in mind that the vast majority love these games so much because of quests/dialogues/storyline/atmosphere. also i think many people are relaxed & like the option to pause the game during the battle. don't know if this maybe would be appropiate for pvp.
TrentOster said:
PvP is not currently in our near-term plans. We looked into it and the amount of hardcoding in the engine is shocking.
-Trent
Which means that they were interested by the concept (''we looked into it''), but that a large amount of harcoding prevents them to do so with their current resources.
Hopefully, when they will have more resources, they might consider doing it (if BG EE is a success.
The debate is therefore closed for now, as we know that the feature isn't planned in the near future (leaving something for the far future).
My own topic, with ideas about it here (PvP, dungeon races you name it):
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/comment/63944#Comment_63944
It seems most players think adding a PvP mode will change the story mode of the game. Going as far as bringing MMO into this. While it won't change the story mode, just makes you want to play through it more open eyed and it has nothing to do with MMO.
While everyone is free to have an opinion, such as PvP is not for BG. I'd applaud them if they at least looked in to it. Right now it's interesting votes. Especially if you don't understand the mode (stating MMO or it will ruin the game???). I've explained it more carefully in the Original topic, linked in this post.
The concern of the existing hard-core BG1 / BG2 fans isn't about adding PvP to BG1/BG2, per se -- the fear that we have (or, at least, I have) is "If we invite the PvP / MMORPG userbase to join the BG1/BG2 community, they will far out number us -- and therefore, they will be in a position to strongly influence FUTURE development decisions." Likely results of this influence would be the elimination of pause & play (not "PvP friendly"), "balancing classes" for PvP play, the elimination / reduction of "RPG mechanics" in favor "twitch-play mechanics", and finally reducing / eliminating the importance of party mechanics in favor of 3rd person shooter gameplay. You can see this evolution in action at Bioware (BG -> NWN -> DA / ME), as well as in the "RPG market" as a whole, as well -- there have been very few party based, pause-and-play (or turn based), strong RPG mechanics games produced in the last 5 years (compared to, say, 95-2000).
Now, if Overhaul games exclusive concern is maximizing the profit potential of their games, then yes, the should implement a PvP mode. It isn't even a hard decision -- for every fan of the BG1/BG2 series, there are dozens (perhaps even hundreds) of people who would purchase a third person fantasy game with a strong PvP component. By not including PvP, I'm sure that Overhaul Games realizes that they are dramatically reducing their potential userbase, possibly to the point where the game will not be successful at all, and certainly ensures that the game won't be as successful as it could have been. The decision not to go in the direction is a risk that they have chosen to take, as we ("the hardcore BG1 / BG2 fans") are hopeful that the release shows that there is a large enough "niche market" to support a gaming company. This is a big risk, obviously, and I applaud them for doing it and hope that it works out for everyone involved... But if I'm being realistic, I think the market is large enough to support the EE remakes (where 90% of the content is already "paid for" and therefore can be priced absurdly low for the amount of content included) but not new product development.
There are loads and loads of third-person fantasy games with a strong PvP component, from many different AAA companies to boot. I rather expect DA3 will fall into this bucket, and there is Diablo 3, various MMORPGs, and many, many, other examples. You (the PvP "crowd") have already won the war -- is it REALLY necessary to hunt down and ensure that NO examples of old-style gameplay remain? Even in a game that is a REMAKE of a game before the war started? Can't we have ONE gaming company of our own?
That is another thing I hadn't thought of. For example it is becoming harder and harder to find good turn based games, everything is going real time, distorting the whole Strategy concept of carefully thought out tactics and moves in favor of the RTS where eye candy and fast twitch muscle response is key.... Not saying they shouldn't make those kinds of games, but not to the extent that they squeeze out the people who developed the whole RPG and Strategy Genres to start with.
The black bits would be a good area to attend such events.
Party versus Party is viable and interesting
I dont see why luck is such a bad downside to fighting others? you have just as much chance as any other to win.
Yes Cheeseyness would probably rule over, but either avoid palying against them or have limitations on what classes can be in play, you cant have all wizards? I dont know but you find most games there are player who exploit the game and its mechanics to the edge.
There was an arena button for baldurs gate 2.
If you dont want to play player versus palyer, dont? I dont see why so many people are close minded about this feature? it is a viable feature that people actually wanted back in the day.
The voting doesnt prove that it should not be implemented because this is a forum full of people who liked the original, what about people who dont play the game and know about this forum? it could be a feature that could attract others into playing the game.
It has already been reported by the Devs that there will be no PvP due to the hard coding in the engine.
As for your other comments about attracting the PvP crowd to the game...why? The game was VERY successful without out. The Enhanced edition can bring in good numbers without becoming a new and different game. If consumers want a PvP game someone will make one for them, this project is about BG making the original prettier and less buggy and easier to Mod. The whole argument for PvP is....lets make it a different game.
That doesn't mean that they won't implement it in the long term once they have more resources (after the sales) to break the code.
Why would I want to join a game when I know that some players in that game could say "The second Imoen frees me from my cage, I'm going to loot items from the table, gear up, then slaughter my comrades regardless of my class, alignment, background story, or stage in the game."
The concept of spending who knows how much time rolling a character only to have him killed does not seem very appealing, unless by PvP implementation we are actually referring more to some kind of stand-alone dueling mod/expansion/mission, which really has no place in the Bhaalspawn story, thus rendering every comment in the defense of "I want PvP in Baldur's Gate" null, void, and moot.
You say (without any basis in experience or fact) “[I]t wouldn't take too much ressources to implement. . .” and get shot down again, when the developer himself announces that the amount of work to implement PVP is astonishing.
You talk a good game ... and maybe that's the PVPer in you, trying to intimidate your opponents into giving up. You may win the internets with this method, but that won't change reality for you.
The reality is: PVP is a lot of work (as I've been telling you and as confirmed by the devs), and for not much reward (as confirmed by the polls: PVPers are not the "vast majority"). The idea that they will suddenly rebuild the entire engine for PVP is slim to none.
though I understand your points, how would it turn into a different game, it would still be baldurs gate but with a black pit for PVP? it is a feature which adds something new and doesn't change the game from what it is? you say it was successful, yet most people who I know play games don't really know much about it, if at all? compared to a lot of games baldurs gate has but a minority who play it, hopefully this edition will increase its popularity tenfold.
Yes, Baldurs gate is about enhancing the experience, with less bugs, but also new content, so I don't see how adding pvp makes the game different, baldurs gate is about story, fighting parties, slaying monsters, the game allows players to band together to fight monsters kill npc parties and do the story, why not fighting other players in an arena/black pit?
It is a feature which could be implemented and I don't know what you talking about " there will be no PvP due to the hard coding in the engine." when PhillipDaigle one of the team members mentioned about Player versus Player being a potential update or something along those lines, I sent him a message supporting his idea.
I guess our opinions differ but don't try to put the argument for pvp into a category of "lets make it a different game." When that's not the case, for me, having pvp just adds another feature to a great game to continue its playability, not that it needs anymore as I still play it now.
Im not against a mod to make PvP a feature. Or a DLC....Im just not wanting them to take time and energy from the Base product for release on the 18th just to include PvP....I dont like it but wouldn't dream of saying "No you cannot make it ever". That would not be my place.
Personally I dont think PvP had a place in AD&D but that is just me.
There was a great deal of PVP in AD&D, and the funniest moment were probably when players tried to outsmart each other.
What you describe is what happened when you had a really bad DM. In our groups we kicked people out who couldn't play nice with each other....the DM was all the Challenge we needed.
They haven't even decided which feature they will implement in BG2EE.
They said it wasn't planned in the near-term plans. Near terms. That's not specific enough to say that it won't be included in some far away patch or BG2 EE.
They did say they were interested in PVP and the thing restraining them is that currently they lack the resources to change harcoded stuff. Currently. That means that once they have more resources (money) they may look into this.