Luckmann

Unless you start handing out cheats to the enemies, there's really no way to make defensive powers/buffs viable when it comes to opponents. Either they will be weak, because if they're not weak, they will be wildly overpowered due to absence of counterspelling principles.

This is only partially true. The point of the movement system is that it lets everyone move freely, conversely, the whole issue of the engagement system is that it stops everyone from moving freely. If you're going to paint up a dichotomy, at least make the points equivalent. I maintain that the goal of the engagement system is good, but that the concept suffers a lot in execution.

Eh, honestly, if they manage to make it NOT clip into the cloak, Obsidian should get GoTY, every year, all years. I've yet to see unclippy cloaks that works with back-carried weapons, bow or otherwise. But the positioning is all out of whack, yeah.

Did you just suggest making a Sorcerer and waste the precious spell slots on summoning spells? o_o

It irks me that ultimately, the IE armour system was little more than hit/miss, where heavier armour somehow meant you were hit less, yet the fact is that the armour system in PoE is arguably worse. With only DT, it's incredibly lopsided in favour of high-pen weapons. While significantly harder to balance, a system accounting for DT, DR, Dodging and Blocking (for Shields) as well as the current recovery system would probably be a lot more fun to play with, weighing different builds with different setups against eachother. In the IE games, there were actually very little that was always worse than something else. Pretty much all those arrows had a role, at least up until the higher levels where everything just sorta broke together (necessitating a certain enchantment level meant you either use those +3 arrows or you don't do anything). The fact that currently in PoE you can say "Heh, Slashing damage? More like slushing damage." and be serious about it is kinda sad.

I was reflecting upon this just earlier today, actually, on an issue completely separate from the Engagement system. As I've said before, I'm currently playing Baldur's Gate 2 too, and this time, I'm an assassin (actually, a Fighter/Assassin, I ended up restarting). And I've mentioned in another thread how I find it sad that there is no ammunition in Pillars of Eternity. Likely, this went the way of the dodo because Sawyer or someone else doesn't feel like it's good for the playing experience to deal with piecemeal ammunition, fair enough, but this also ended up neutering combat. I'm currenly playing that assassin in Baldur's Gate 2, and I've got a backup bow, because, honestly, why wouldn't I, and the way it affects combat is remarkable. My poison + Arrows of Biting, for example. Or changing that ammunition out for something else, depending on the enemies I'm facing, is like night and day, and really adds another layer of that extra shine that made the Infinity Engine games great. It's another one of those actions that it takes to win an encounter that adds to flexibility and tactical variety; yes, there's less hard abilities as granted through a class, but it's also freer, relying more on using assets than mashing buttons.

Have you even tried using the disengagement abilities tactically and/or trying to keep some of your toons unengaged and mobile, or do you just march your toons forward, engage, and swing until one side falls over? Disengagement abilities are severely limited and the moment you're back in Engagement, it's all over. Disengagement abilities are useful when you want to get out of engagement in order to attack someone else or flee, but useless for battlefield control. Likewise, keeping some of the CNPC:s unengaged does nothing to help with controlling the battlefield through positioning; not only is it hard to avoid with a very limited amount of party members (moreso accounting for those that are deliberately trying to stay out of Engagement), but it doesn't actually affect the positioning of the involved setpieces in any way. Edit: I touched upon the exact same issue here.

Maybe this is the disconnect here, because I would love mechanics in the game that lets me control the battlefield by positioning, and currently, there is no such thing. That's my main issue with the Engagement system as it is, that it locks down the battlefield and makes it impossible to reposition both yourself and the opponents.

The state-of-the-art RPG romance already has you having sex with a bull. A horse is only the logical next step. As a heterosexual, homosexual romances appeal to me no more than zoophiliac romances would, and games these days are full of those. So it's not really that odd. Er....you not seriously comparing homosexual relationships to a relationship with a horse are you? We try to keep bigotry at a minimum on this forum, its not cool It's not bigotry, the comparison is apt. You were the one that brought up that "its highly unlikely that you would have sex with a horse"; it is in fact no more unlikely than me having sex with a man. To be perfectly honest I think I'd actually be more likely to have a romantic relationship with a female centaur than a male human, "consider[ing] the realistic side of intimacy". I have less than zero need for either in a game, honestly, but at least the one have the prospect of being interesting rather than feeling forced.

Well, yeah, I'm all about not holding the hand of the players, but let's not pretend even the greatest of games were perfect. I remember the basilisk random encounter. It's possible to get it before you even know what basilisks are, so it's pretty horrifying. There issues with IE games as well as any other game, but at the end of the day, things like the random basilisk encounter are not flaws as much as quirks, because the issue isn't systemic, it's just one of those small things that makes you tear out some hair, it's not a huge problem with the game design itself.

I guess the system works as long as you outnumber your opponents, but if you outnumber your opponents, you really have to ask yourself if you need the engagement system to begin with. And it's a poor system if it's going to break down as soon as there's more than 6 opponents on the screen. Imagine the Engagement system and the Tethyrian army in Throne of Bhaal. Or really any encounter with an above-average number of opponents. It's a good thing (or a bad thing, I guess) that there's no gibberlings in this game, because then the people playing Easy and Normal would see the Engagement system as it works now break down, I guess.

The state-of-the-art RPG romance already has you having sex with a bull. A horse is only the logical next step. As a heterosexual, homosexual romances appeal to me no more than zoophiliac romances would, and games these days are full of those. So it's not really that odd.

You are so lucky I cant find a video clip of the climactic battle of that old animated movie "Wizards". http://youtu.be/Vgol5_00prc?t=1h13m36s

Those are called servitors. Even if it's more or less an update with just "Alright, nothing's happened, today Josh spilled spaghetti everywhere." it's appreciated. I think we can all logically understand that of course you people are working, but I think there's this part of most humans that just nag that if you don't hear anything, nothing's happening.

Both you and Sensuki mention "control the battlefield; And I'm just not seeing it. Playing exclusively on Hard, the current Engagement system "as-is", I feel that I in fact have incredibly limited battlefield control, simply because once the setpieces are are on the table, they're effectively locked down by engagement and cannot move at all, incapable of repositioning themselves, but more importantly, reposition the opposition. So there's no actual positioning, except pre-combat (which is funny, because pre-buffing is badwrongfun, but hinging encounters on the immediate initiation is.. fun?) and practically zero battlefield control. That's actually my main problem with engagement right now, not that it allows me to control the battlefield, but that it doesn't. It just locks things down in an amorphous blob that I can exert no control over bar very specific, very limited mechanical abilities that lasts for seconds (when they work, don't get me started on when the rogue decides to path around the blob to use his escape mechanic, disengaging in the process).

Makes me want to play a Skaenite Priest with the Slave background. Don't expect not to be oppressed by your fellow Skaenites though. They kill everyone apparently - slave or not. Which just sucks ass.

Confront Josh on this and his response will be 3-fold. 1) He'll say all bets are off once the player is armed with meta knowledge. He'll say he's more concerned about Players who are playing the game for the first time who might be turned off by the perceived Solution-less, All or Nothing, rock-paper-scissors gameplay that Hard counters bring to the equation. 2) Then he'll say that there's nothing "tactical" about a situation where an enemy Mage casts Finger of Death and gets his attack nullified by a party who put up a Death Ward ahead of time because they didn't want to be hit with death magic, and, you know, took the necessary precautions like any decent field general would. 3) And finally he'll argue that the problem with hard counters is that it goes against character build freedom. (ie. I want to build a party of Barbarians, but I can't because this game has wizards that cast finger of death and the barbarian class does not have a counter to that) But again, None of this is "fact" (and certainly not observable fact, no matter what Josh says) First off, BG2 is physical, tangeable, observable proof that #3 is complete nonsense, so that one is not even worth debating. As for #2, I beg to differ. I define Tactics as coming up with solutions/game plans to problems that arise in combat. Ok, Hard counters fit that definition. Period. Josh is a game designer and it's his job to supply the player with solutions to problems, NOT to decide which solutions are "boring" and which one's are "tactical". #1 is the only valid argument he makes. But Removing hard counters is NOT the solution. Giving the player information and tools and Alternatives to hard counters is. That is to say, if you put Medusas and Basilisks in the game, and their Petrification attacks are Save or Die, then give the player advanced knowledge of the threat. Then Give him Non Hard counter options... like access to Undead summons. Mirror Shields, Stone to flesh scrolls; Potions that massively improve saving throws; the ability to avoid the encounter outright via stealth and invisibility etc. etc. etc. And then... trust the player to figure things out on his own. We're not ALL Idiots, Josh. We are the ones who always end up discovering Exploits that your own dev team wasn't intelligent enough to anticipate. So what makes you think we can't solve an insta-kill problem and have fun doing it? This right here is likely why he doesn't actually frequent this forum, preferring the company of yes-sayers. He'd actually have to argue his points and I think he'd have a really hard time doing that.

From there: In Icewind Dale II, we did not have hard counter spell battle puzzles. We also generally didn’t rely on that many save-or-die effects (there is a “Tactics” mod that changes this). This approach (and a quasi-3E rulest) allowed people to build a relatively wide range of parties and character types within those parties. Because the scenarios typically did not require prior knowledge of what was going to unfold, players could usually react and adapt in the middle of a battle with the tools they had brought. I can't remember what it was in IWD2 I liked (I just remember I liked it a lot), but I think this could have been a big part of it. I do have to try it again. Guess Rome 2 TW and Blackguards have to wait a bit longer. I remember really liking IWD2 a lot. I don't remember ever really replaying it.

In Baldur's Gate, Boots of Speed were never really about combat, they were more useful for scouting and kiting groups. Speak for yourself. Getting my casters in and out of combat or building a backstabber character says otherwise. Hell, even just being able to run up and smack the mage on the head before he can get a spell off was worth it.

Makes me want to play a Skaenite Priest with the Slave background.

Probably to account for 0.

I honestly never really used Breach much. Most dispelling is largely unnecessary with the exception of very select protections that are just party-boning unless you remove them. "I CAN BEND REALITY BY RITUAL AND WORD, THE POWERS OF CREATION AND UNDOING, I WILL NOT - !" *thwack* "- STOP IT, I AM THE STO -" *thwack* "Aughck!"

Fools don't exist on a lot of forums because they walk around stating the obvious without relation to anything. In other news, the colour blue is blue.

I would really hope so too, but honestly, I'm not getting my hopes up on that. I feel as if the more I learn, the more it seems that Sawyer's general design philosophy is that if you don't play it as he and his clique intended, you're playing it wrong. I would not worry overly much, though, because odds are there'll be some visible or invisible wall preventing you from even considering doing whatever you were first considering. But I'm not bitter or anything. No and No. lol For some reason, I knew that those were the answers, I just wanted to make sure. On one hand, absolutely agree with you on that. There's already some fantastic freedom in the PoE character creation/build system, with many class combinations being able to do a mountain of different things. Some are still notably lacking somewhat in some regards (I'm looking at you, Ranger), while others are hilariously fantastic in allowing builds you'd normally not even consider (Priests of Skaen, woo; why can't Priests of Magran be as cool pseudo-fighters, ranged or no?). On the other hand, I can see how *some* weapons would have trouble doing backstabs, like greatswords, or blunderbuss. But not being able to do ranged backstabs in the IE games is just BS; I know later DnD games fixed this. I'm almost sad to see multiclassing go, I'd love to go for a stealthy arcane archer approach with backstabbing. I really liked the dungeon the first time 'round too. But after that, it becomes a real chore, even for the 2nd go, let alone the 20th. While it'd be fun if PoE offered something as good for the first time you boot it up, I really hope it doesn't feel as constrained and "Sigh, not this BS again", for subsequent runs. I really love BG2, but the way it starts - first dropping you in that dungeon, right away, and then introducing you to the extremely content-dense Athkatla where everyone just dumps everything on their mind in your lap, and then you can't even get proper wilderness areas for breathing room - that.. was not the best design decision.

And that's exactly the kind of sentiment that poisons modern gaming. Why on earth would you not expect to be able to die from looting a chest? You should absolutely expect to die from looting a chest. Instead of games teaching us to be careful, manage our resources, come up with tactics and strategies, expect the unexpected, we get Skyrim-esque hand-holding where we know that it's perfectly alright not to care about the traps at all, because there's no chance that they'll kill you right away anyway. If they are about to kill you, it makes sure to warn you repeatedly, so you have all the time in the world to eat fifteen cheese wheels. I'll take "anticlimactic and boring" gameplay that actually matters, over suspension-less hand-holding, affirmative action no-child-left-behind casualisation where nothing matters, any day of the week.