Andeerz

I agree that the enemy AI is the main problem. And I will not argue that. But I think that arbitrary limitations to equipment are not a believable and interesting way to balance this stuff. Regardless, this is not what I would like this discussion to be about. We are all in agreement here about the AI and that, really, the Engagement System isn't going to make combat more interesting on its own, no matter how good a system it is. But what I am suggesting is to make the engagement system actually a good system that will actually do its part to make combat more believable, interesting, and enriching to game play. And this will be good regardless of whether or not the AI is improved (though improved AI is more important).

Hmmm... in what way can BG2 be balanced and tweaked (fundamentally speaking) that PoE cannot? I think that PoE could be balanced and improved in much the same way as in those situations you describe by tweaking existing prameters in the systems already in place. That said, I think that both BG2 and PoE are similarly limited in the kinds of battles and combat situations that one encounters. And I think that this limitation cannot simply be addressed by tweaking values, encounter design, etc.. No matter how much you tweak these things, ultimately battles are going to involve the same AI controlling the enemies, the same basic objectives (e.g. kill all the baddies), and the same limited tool-set at the player's (and AI's) disposal to accomplish these objectives. These are the things that need to change if you want a fundamentally different kind of challenge. Otherwise, you are simply changing the flavor of the day, and those longer, "better" encounters won't really be all that novel. (Which is not necessarily a bad thing. I do think there could be a better balance in terms of the kinds of battles there are in the game.) Anyway, I among other things, a good thing for Obsidian to focus on, I think, would be more interaction with the environment, especially during battle (which would represent expanding the player/AI tool-set mentioned above), and ideally not just through scripted stuff (though that can be amazing enough!). It would do a lot to enhance immersion and create fundamentally novel and unique combat scenarios. For example, would it not be amazing if your powerful wizard's ice spells could be used to form an ice bridge to get to the other side of a river, only to melt it later when your pursuing enemies attempted to cross? Or perhaps, as another example, wouldn't it be neat if your fighter was able to push an enemy off a cliff, with that falling enemy landing upon and damaging another enemy? And as a final example, would it not be awesome to be able to place lit torches on the walls of a long-abandoned dungeon in order to see, or alternatively extinguish such torches to keep from being seen?

I see what you both mean. And I agree with both of you!!! Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned anything that might imply that this suggestion would solve any sort of problems associated with AI or that the Engagement System (as it is now, at least) does much to make the AI's weaknesses that much less exploitable. So, I will edit the OP to at least make that clear. As 4ward said, the Engagement System has nothing to do with the AI being easy. And, for the record, I believe it does not make the AI all that much less exploitable (though there is a case for helping reduce kiting), and my suggestion wouldn't help in that matter. I really don't care much to discuss that matter further. Also, I do NOT hate movement! I want more of it! I just want it to be believable movement. And that is exactly why I am suggesting what I am suggesting!!! What my suggestion WOULD do (I think) is remove many of the immersion-breaking, frustrating things that happen during melee combat that are associated with the Engagement System. And this is where I want feedback and discussion if possible. And I also strongly believe that in a situation where the AI is like in 4ward's suggested "hard" mode, the things that annoy a lot of us about the Engagement System would become all the more obvious since the AI as much as the player will exploit the system (and that is fine!). BUT what would also become more obvious are the Engagement System's potential merits (such as providing an alternative and somewhat realistic method of crowd control that makes melee combat actually seem somewhat like the real thing)!!! And my suggestion, I believe, would be a big step towards accomplishing this while eliminating a lot of what is currently annoying about the system! What do you guys thing about the suggestion itself? Do you see it as something that would conceivably improve game play and accomplish what I think it would? I believe my suggestion would allow for the game engine to more effectively simulate (regardless of whether it would be relevant to PoE as it is now), albeit in an abstracted manner, some really cool phenomena that occurs in actual melee combat, such as retreating while still presenting a threat/not exposing weak-spots, and (on the same vein) switching people out from the front lines to be replaced with someone else. There are other things, too!

First off, I know this is yet another thread about engagement mechanics… but I haven’t seen what I wish to suggest actually being suggested and explored before. If it has, I apologize. I did search, but if this has been suggested before, I did not search well enough. Anyway, I want this to be a discussion of this suggestion and whether it would address the issues people have with the engagement mechanic, and if it is plausible for the developers or (more likely) modders to implement in PoE, or perhaps for the devs to implement in a future game. I will be selfish and share my opinion about the concept of engagement. I think that it is an excellent idea that has the potential to truly bring something new to the table that I think was sorely lacking in Infinity Engine games (namely controlling enemy movement without exploitation of unbelievable, immersion-breaking AI limitations/quirks), and that simulates some truly important tactical features of melee combat in real life. It just isn’t quite implemented in the most intuitive, fluid, realistic, and gameplay-enhancing way possible. The biggest gripe with it that I have is that there is no way to change position without provoking a disengagement attack when there really ought to be. I have absolutely no problem with disengagement attacks per se. The main thing I suggest is a method to move while in engagement that does not necessarily trigger an attack. I believe the way I suggest it here will still maintain the merits of the engagement mechanic, since taking action to avoid disengagement attacks will involve penalties to movement, and can still yet expose one to disengagement attacks depending on the situation. This can be accomplished by implementing a special kind of movement mechanic where the player or the AI can do the following: designate a cardinal direction for an entity to always face while moving (or while staying in their current place), or designate one of the engagement targets or an arbitrary point/entity on the map as a point for an entity to always face while staying put as well as moving around, towards, or away from. Any lateral or backward movement would of course be much slower than running. But this kind of movement should not provoke any disengagement attack if movement doesn’t involve exposing the side or back to an engaged enemy. Also, and this is important, the ONLY time disengagement attacks should be triggered (given the entities in engagement within range) are if the sides or back of the disengaging entity are exposed to its opponent that it is engaged with. Some things to balance this mechanic which would be intuitive and believable could be: (as mentioned before) any lateral and backward movement being slower than running and/or making movement while engaged in any direction be slower than running unless explicitly commanded by the AI or player a penalty to deflection and attack while moving allowing attacking while moving a chance of knockdown for any disengagement attack Some of the concepts proposed by Raz in this thread, particularly the stuff about null-engagement, and increasing player agency in choosing/changing engagement targets. #1 above here is absolutely necessary. The others might or might not be. This would mimic some very important dynamics of real-life melee scenarios, namely the constant re-positioning of opponents, switching people out from the front lines, and moving the front line (or any line for that matter). And, more importantly, it would open up new tactical opportunities that don’t necessarily involve exploiting limitations of the AI! Some possible difficulties I immediately foresee in implementation of this are: making the AI take this stuff into consideration making an intuitive UI for commanding entities to do the new kinds of movement (related to #1) making an intuitive way for players to define AI behaviors of party members when it comes to engagement to accommodate the suggested features making animations to make the sort of proposed lateral and backward movements look ok Another suggestion I have, but that is not necessary for perfection in my opinion is a chance of knockdown for any attack on a person’s flank (sides or back) provided it is the first attack upon engagement. I think this might be cool in any case, but could add some bite to engagement mechanics if the original suggestion takes too much of that away.