To makers of game, my five cents and suggestions...

[ByFstugan]

+ Also take another turn in a much harder level with same gang (also like Diablo), another run with same team is something else than a restart on a harder level - I know the later exist.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't there a Difficulty setting in the game?

You are correct, as I was when I said about the same "I know the later exist".

What I talk about is taking your party for another round in a much harder setting, like you could do in Diablo where you never could start on the next harder level unless you finished the first. That's why I called it to "take ANOTHER turn", and not "taking a harder course".

That would of course need to add other stuff to the game I assume - but since there are way to little set items (especially that gives set bonuses) that would be something this game would do good about.

Besides this... Perhaps there could be another setting to do about difficulty that make it possible to choose the NUMBER of monsters from "extremely low" (as I think it is now) to "normal" and up to "high" or even "silly". So not only set how hard they are, but how many also. It seems obvious there are different opinions to if the game has enough of them

[ByFstugan]

+ Maybe Cleric/Priest/(Paladin) with healing abilities would be an alternative also as in the old games. Seems now the Alchemist has replaced them, maybe both could be in game so one could choose playstyle?

Hah. Many ask about clerics. I did a lot time ago. I think the Cleric would eliminate the Alchemist (which can be funner, since you're gathering herbs to make cure wounds, cure poison, etc, rather than relying on someone to magically heal you)

This was about being able to CHOOSE PLAYSTYLE, and I'm sure that it wouldn't eliminate the Alchemist (which to me almost seems unnecessary as it is, it both grows silly few herbs in the whole game, especially the crystal ones that you really want, and you find many potions that if you save the game much you'll almost make it with them).

But if what you say would be true, which of the Fighter, Barbarian and Knight eliminates the others, and why are the others still here? Isn't this a perfect example that you can CHOOSE PLAYSTYLE and not that they eliminate eachother? Perhaps one is over powered, but I think that's a balance issue that can be solved - and would be less such when coming to a Cleric vs an Alchemist.

A Cleric should also have offensive spells, extra strong on undead. But they don't have unlimited mana and can't heal and be offensive all the time, and many times it's not time to "write spells" where you much easier could "drink a potion". The potions should still be necessary, and even more if there are potions (like "Bear form") that only the Alchemist can do.

As I said - it would be about choosing playstyle - not eliminate other roles. It already is in the game as said about the figher class, and that's also true for the Wizard vs Battlemage vs the Farmer. It would be just awesome to have that on the healing side also and not just the offensive.

[Sir Tawmis]

First - the bigger the area, the bigger the need of more monsters to not make it feel deserted. As I said - my feeling many times were that the places was 90% cleared by someone else. I don't mean that it should be in Diablo levels, but the old dungeon crawler games didn't give me this deserted feeling.

I think finding that balance between Diablo and what is in LOG, is pretty difficult. Diablo is strictly hack and slash. LOG also has puzzles, whether riddles, or timed. So while, yes, it feels more deserted than something from Diablo, it - as Isaac said - relies more on the riddles than actual monster slaying. So you're looking at two very different play styles.

I went through the same similar shock when I got LOG1. I thought it would be like Wizardry, and chalk full of monsters. When I found one of the first "tricks" in the dungeon of pressing the button then running through while the teleporter was disabled for those brief few seconds; I realized, this wasn't a "dungeon crawler hack and slash" this was a "dungeon crawler with riddles and timed puzzles, with monsters thrown in on the side."

Second - the setting is often that the world you're in are under some master-evil or similar - hence they would be united under him and not fight internally.

My impression for LOG1, was it was a prison; everyone was out for themselves (some cursed, like skeletons), some out for survival (like snails), some protecting the bosses... But there's no reason why snails wouldn't attack say Ratlings.

Third - even seperat areas, like the sewers, could easily be understood as they got their own agenda and their own territorium to defend, and that place is "their ground" that other monsters don't visit to fight (which they don't either in the game).

Except the frogs with the Ratlings, in your example.

The problem with "The problem with my first solution" is that my suggestion was just that, specific to an area - it should be "a maximum number of monster in such place" (i.e Herder's Den cave) where you have monsters with identity like "big muschroom 1.1" (and also 2.1, 3,1) up to the maxium number there could be at same time there, let's say it's 99 now. When 1.1 up to max 99.1 is all dead it would respawn "Big Muschroom 1.2" (and also 2.2, 3.2) up to the max, and this time they would give less XP/loot.
I'm rather sure a similar system was in an old game I played, but can't recall which - but it can't be a problem to fix. There would also be other ways to solve the exploit.

Well, I know I have personally, remained in specific areas, to level up my guys to have better skills (or magic). So a decreasing XP reward, even in a specific room or area, would hamper those, who seek to build up their character skills and magic, before proceeding on. There are times, because some of the monsters can be quite a bit of a pain (say, any of the elementals), that I will remain outside of the area, until I have a pretty good build up of the character skills and magic, before I proceed.

I'm not sure if you got me right here. Have you played "Might & Magic 6" and the later? What I talk about is that there are other NPC's in the game, like an family missing their child to a pack of villains in another area or just about anything you can make up. Would also be nice with a quest log then, as I'm sure you must have seen in other games. In those they could be called "main quests" (which LoG2 has) and "side quests" (which I talk about).

The notes you mentioned are just clues to solve puzzles, mainly to get the end quest solved (i.e to get to the next power gem). I'd like alot more optional quest that are like quests, like extra adventures in a bigger adventure - especially connected to other NPC's that can say "help me" and "thank you".

I mentioned NPCs (like an example of an NPC saying, "Please save my son who ventured into the woods")... However, for LOG, I don't think NPCs would work all that well. Because, I believe the feel of the game is making your characters feel isolated (whether they're in Grimrock, or the Isle of Nex). So having a random NPC who says, "Hey, I am locked up down here in this cell. One of the skeletons has a key on him! Find him and free me and I will give you my sword!" While, yes, in most RPG games, I would love something like this - I don't think that works with the feeling that LOG tries to convey.

This was about being able to CHOOSE PLAYSTYLE, and I'm sure that it wouldn't eliminate the Alchemist (which to me almost seems unnecessary as it is, it both grows silly few herbs in the whole game, especially the crystal ones that you really want, and you find many potions that if you save the game much you'll almost make it with them).
But if what you say would be true, which of the Fighter, Barbarian and Knight eliminates the others, and why are the others still here? Isn't this a perfect example that you can CHOOSE PLAYSTYLE and not that they eliminate eachother? Perhaps one is over powered, but I think that's a balance issue that can be solved - and would be less such when coming to a Cleric vs an Alchemist.
A Cleric should also have offensive spells, extra strong on undead. But they don't have unlimited mana and can't heal and be offensive all the time, and many times it's not time to "write spells" where you much easier could "drink a potion". The potions should still be necessary, and even more if there are potions (like "Bear form") that only the Alchemist can do.
As I said - it would be about choosing playstyle - not eliminate other roles. It already is in the game as said about the figher class, and that's also true for the Wizard vs Battlemage vs the Farmer. It would be just awesome to have that on the healing side also and not just the offensive.

See, again; I originally wanted Clerics as well. But as I played LOG2, and explored more of the world (because LOG2 opened up more doors, rather than just being stuck in a prison) - it dawned on me, that perhaps on this world that LOG takes place, there is no such thing as clerics, or magical priests, and paladins. It makes it a very unique style of RPG (similar to the world of Dragonlance, when there was a time that there were no clerics). When I accepted that idea, I enjoyed that this made LOG stick out a little more than other RPGs I enjoyed, such as Wizardry, Realms of Arkania, Might and Magic, and... well, just about every other RPG.

[ByFstugan]

First - the bigger the area, the bigger the need of more monsters to not make it feel deserted. As I said - my feeling many times were that the places was 90% cleared by someone else. I don't mean that it should be in Diablo levels, but the old dungeon crawler games didn't give me this deserted feeling.

I think finding that balance between Diablo and what is in LOG, is pretty difficult. Diablo is strictly hack and slash. LOG also has puzzles, whether riddles, or timed. So while, yes, it feels more deserted than something from Diablo, it - as Isaac said - relies more on the riddles than actual monster slaying. So you're looking at two very different play styles.

I went through the same similar shock when I got LOG1. I thought it would be like Wizardry, and chalk full of monsters. When I found one of the first "tricks" in the dungeon of pressing the button then running through while the teleporter was disabled for those brief few seconds; I realized, this wasn't a "dungeon crawler hack and slash" this was a "dungeon crawler with riddles and timed puzzles, with monsters thrown in on the side."

I'm not "looking at two very different play styles". I said clearly that I'm NOT comparing it to Diablo - but to the old time games. In my book it's like EoB-serie and Black Crypt. Compared to them LoG2 seems cleared to 90% in many areas (NOT all).

I just Diablo in other cases as a good example of implementing ideas that Diablo had used and were clear in that game. I used that game since it's well known. Like how you can take another run with harder settings. That was clearly not a suggestion to make LoG a hack and slash genre game, but how you can add to the meta-game. I dunno how you can read it different.

There are oceans of levels inbetween "deserted" and "fair level" as well as between "fair level" and "hack and slash".

As I suggested - a solution where you can't only choose difficulty level (with some alternative as HC and such) there could very well be an alternative in the number of enemies from "Low", "Medium" and "High". Then each player could set the game to the feeling they're looking for. I don't really see why that should be a problem.

[ByFstugan]

Second - the setting is often that the world you're in are under some master-evil or similar - hence they would be united under him and not fight internally.

My impression for LOG1, was it was a prison; everyone was out for themselves (some cursed, like skeletons), some out for survival (like snails), some protecting the bosses... But there's no reason why snails wouldn't attack say Ratlings.

I talk in general above, not about LoG specifically, even less about LoG 1 and not LoG 2 (where the later fits my description). The point was that you had problem to see the logic with the monsters not attacking eachother - I tried to make a point where that not even in a real world would be strange.

Also, even in nature animals of different kinds can live side by side - and when you make a game you decide the rules for how such things turn out. You can easy make snails and rats live in peace - you just program them to. It's not hard to program, not hard to imagine. It's not eve against known logic or nature. It might be against what happens some times in real life - but it's not against what happens in all cases known to us.

[ByFstugan]

Third - even seperat areas, like the sewers, could easily be understood as they got their own agenda and their own territorium to defend, and that place is "their ground" that other monsters don't visit to fight (which they don't either in the game).

Except the frogs with the Ratlings, in your example.

What I said in my above applies here also. The rats could easily learn to live side by side with giant frogs - even more in a fantasy game. From what I know they are not sworn enemies even in real life - but you seem to think that anything that's not the same species should by instinct want to kill anything that's of another species. I don't see that neither in nature - or would like to see it in games.

I don't even have problem seeing creatures that doesn't exist in fantasy game - imagine how far of I might be in my acceptance in games

I wonder why you have more problems with rats not killing frogs (or vice versa) than you have with rats running on two legs and using gunpowder weapons?

[ByFstugan]

The problem with "The problem with my first solution" is that my suggestion was just that, specific to an area - it should be "a maximum number of monster in such place" (i.e Herder's Den cave) where you have monsters with identity like "big muschroom 1.1" (and also 2.1, 3,1) up to the maxium number there could be at same time there, let's say it's 99 now. When 1.1 up to max 99.1 is all dead it would respawn "Big Muschroom 1.2" (and also 2.2, 3.2) up to the max, and this time they would give less XP/loot.
I'm rather sure a similar system was in an old game I played, but can't recall which - but it can't be a problem to fix. There would also be other ways to solve the exploit.

Well, I know I have personally, remained in specific areas, to level up my guys to have better skills (or magic). So a decreasing XP reward, even in a specific room or area, would hamper those, who seek to build up their character skills and magic, before proceeding on. There are times, because some of the monsters can be quite a bit of a pain (say, any of the elementals), that I will remain outside of the area, until I have a pretty good build up of the character skills and magic, before I proceed.

Here we talk about a problem with possible unlimited farming ability - something you yourself from the beginning said that it might need to "....ultimately, probably need to be fixed".

After that you misunderstood my suggestion, pointing out a problem that already was solved in my suggestion.

Now you instead of saying that you missed that, you argue for the use of such exploit in the game. That's wierd when you from beginning talked about it like something that needed to "be fixed".

The suggestion isn't about removing possibility to level up in your own phase before going to harder places, it's about something that can be exploited in eternity. If such places should exist they should gain less and less reward until the reward is too small to continue. Other places could also respawn it animals, as it does in LoG2 - so you can build XP before going further.

So I don't see the need for Herder's Den in it's present form. I agree with you in your first statement: "...need to be fixed".

[ByFstugan]

I'm not sure if you got me right here. Have you played "Might & Magic 6" and the later? What I talk about is that there are other NPC's in the game, like an family missing their child to a pack of villains in another area or just about anything you can make up. Would also be nice with a quest log then, as I'm sure you must have seen in other games. In those they could be called "main quests" (which LoG2 has) and "side quests" (which I talk about).

The notes you mentioned are just clues to solve puzzles, mainly to get the end quest solved (i.e to get to the next power gem). I'd like alot more optional quest that are like quests, like extra adventures in a bigger adventure - especially connected to other NPC's that can say "help me" and "thank you".

I mentioned NPCs (like an example of an NPC saying, "Please save my son who ventured into the woods")... However, for LOG, I don't think NPCs would work all that well. Because, I believe the feel of the game is making your characters feel isolated (whether they're in Grimrock, or the Isle of Nex). So having a random NPC who says, "Hey, I am locked up down here in this cell. One of the skeletons has a key on him! Find him and free me and I will give you my sword!" While, yes, in most RPG games, I would love something like this - I don't think that works with the feeling that LOG tries to convey.

This is a bit confusing. First of all - your quote is what you later said to Isaac, and not to me - and I know you said THAT to HIM. What preceeds the quote here was this:

+ I MISS: Side quests giving XP and items. I was a big fan of the Might & Magic series (from 6 and forth), there they had this and it was a great ingridiens that added much to the game imo.

There is not a lot there (in Grimrock) to give side quests; other than notes and such... or if you're inclined to get complete armor sets.

Here your responce showed a total lack of understanding the use of NPC's and instead you thought of "solutions" like "notes" or to gather "armor sets".

I'm not really sure what to make of your talk of "the feeling" of LoG - it's not like it's closed from change, neither from inspiration from other games. If the earlier Dungeon Crawler games wouldn't exist it neither would exist. If the "feeling" was set, then LoG2 would not have a open world solution since LoG1 hadn't.

From what I see the Developers of LoG are so skilled that for them to implement side quests and interactive NPC's (or solutions without NPC's like papers with "rumors of X trapped in dungeon" and if you save hear you'd notice that you get a reward) or anything alike would be no problem. So NPC's isn't really a must, even if I wouldn't mind that since I loved M&M6 and forth.

The important thing in this suggestion to me is to make the game longer and adding many extra small goals to the big goal of making the end boss. If I recall correct I think I spent about 31 hours finish the game, then oven 9 hours was in Herder's Den. The game felt far to short for me.

[Isaac]

I wonder why you have more problems with rats not killing frogs (or vice versa) than you have with rats running on two legs and using gunpowder weapons?

That's easy. When dealing with a fantasy setting, one accepts the context of 'reality' in that world as the base line. In LoG's setting, anthromorphic Ratlings exist [simple as that]. We can extrapolate from their attitude, how they might very plausibly shoot at a dangerous toad in their close vicinity; either for self defense, or out of malignant boredom. Basically one can attribute to them the behavior of pirate sailors on shore leave, and it generally fits. Were they passing on the deck of a ship, along the coastline, they might well shoot at any target that catches their eye, but that poses little risk of serious consequence... A rock, a bird, even a toad. The toad could entertain them trying in frustrated vain to chase the ship with injuries. One can easily imagine that Ratling in trouble with its boss, if the toad did actually hop on to the ship and raise havoc though. That would give incentive to not shoot at another one, where there perhaps was none before.

I'm not really sure what to make of your talk of "the feeling" of LoG - it's not like it's closed from change, neither from inspiration from other games. If the earlier Dungeon Crawler games wouldn't exist it neither would exist. If the "feeling" was set, then LoG2 would not have a open world solution since LoG1 hadn't.

I think this is a misconception of cause & effect. Changes come well enough, but not all changes are suited to all things. Some changes can be detrimental; even lose a quality for gaining a new one ~and not necessarily be worth the loss. This same suggestion of multiplayer comes up with the Fallout IP a lot. Many requested a multiplayer feature for any new Fallout game, and yet Fallout takes place in a depopulated wasteland of few people, and the game is all about isolation and self sufficiency. Making it a co-op buddy game inherently diminishes its ability to present a solitary experience. Some games are not just meant to be solo, but are best played solo. Someone did make a multiplayer Fallout 2 engine clone, that presented the game world as an MMO. A perfect example of a new feature enabling a new gameplay experience, but ruining the original premise and carefully manipulated mood of the player.

A multiplayer Grimrock [1 or 2] would seem better suited to having a dungeon like that of Demise or DungeonHack, and generally play like an FPP Diablo; rather than "Eye of the Beholder". In EoB , the party are on their own in an undiscovered venue, and solely responsible for any changes that come... They are not one of several parties actively exploring the Waterdeep sewers for the town council. Some settings (and their games) are best played Solo, as per the intent of the design. Games like EoB and LoG are meant to have a UI challenge... It's (for instance) why the spell runes needed to be clicked, or marked rather than use hotkeys. Combat is for the player to handle the PCs actions... While a two player party actually takes away aspect of gameplay from the other player, and ruins the timing. SSI made EoB3, and in wondrous blunder, actually included a UI button for all party members to attack at once; doubtless seen as a time saving improvement ~by someone who didn't understand why it was a deleterious mistake.

[Sir Tawmis]

First, I want to make sure you're not getting upset because I am disagreeing with you. I'm enjoying having a discussion about what LOG is to me compared to what it is for you. There is NO right or wrong answer. We all get something different out of a game, and want something different out of a game.

That said... Isaac answered the other parts of what I was trying to convey way better than I, so I will leave that ... and I will answer this part...

Well, I know I have personally, remained in specific areas, to level up my guys to have better skills (or magic). So a decreasing XP reward, even in a specific room or area, would hamper those, who seek to build up their character skills and magic, before proceeding on. There are times, because some of the monsters can be quite a bit of a pain (say, any of the elementals), that I will remain outside of the area, until I have a pretty good build up of the character skills and magic, before I proceed.

Here we talk about a problem with possible unlimited farming ability - something you yourself from the beginning said that it might need to "....ultimately, probably need to be fixed".
After that you misunderstood my suggestion, pointing out a problem that already was solved in my suggestion.
Now you instead of saying that you missed that, you argue for the use of such exploit in the game. That's wierd when you from beginning talked about it like something that needed to "be fixed".
The suggestion isn't about removing possibility to level up in your own phase before going to harder places, it's about something that can be exploited in eternity. If such places should exist they should gain less and less reward until the reward is too small to continue. Other places could also respawn it animals, as it does in LoG2 - so you can build XP before going further.
So I don't see the need for Herder's Den in it's present form. I agree with you in your first statement: "...need to be fixed".

I think there's a miscommunication (which may be entirely my fault, but here we go)...

In regards to farming exploits (in this case, the Herders), I believe - while, yes, it's fun to find those if they're extremely rare (because then it's like an Easter Egg!), they should ultimately be fixed. If the developers are aware, and intended the area to be an Easter Egg (for those that discover it, and seek to level), then it shouldn't be fixed.

So, what I am saying is there should be no need for your proposition of "decreasing XP after X amount of kills" for a specific monster or in a specific area, room, whatever. The XP gained from killing a monster should always remain the same.

Because as your characters increase in levels, I am pretty sure the required amount to gain a level also increases. (For example, you need 100 XP for level 1, 500 XP for level 2, 3000 XP for level 3, 5000 XP for level 4, etc etc).

If the Herders are always providing 100 XP per kill; eventually the amount of herders needed to be killed to level is going to drastically increase as you continue to level. So if someone wants to sit there, and spend their days killing Herders, so be it (again, this is on the assumption that the area was intended to be a "farming" spot for those that find it; and if not, developers, whenever they have the time, should patch the game to fix it).