Sensuki

It makes no difference whether there's recovery or not. It's pretty much the same thing.

Told you he only cares about the targeting clauses, haha. Been saying that the whole time, most people only like the engagement system because it is an aggro mechanic - forces enemy units to attack your Fighter, etc. That can be done without the engagement system. refer to

They actually used to have animation time only and the game was like super super fast.

Infinitron loves a good drama

Yeah the people telling us to stop voicing our opinions are lolz.

Do you really think that people are incapable of performing actions under different control schemes? I right click to move in DotA 2, I left click to move in the IE games, and I hold right mouse for Ghost Recon to run. It is a disgrace to just do the status quo because everyone else is.

Changing the control scheme would have been bad from a UX perspective IMO. Some of the control stuff that they have changed isn't good anyway. It's like removing the start bar from windows when people have been used to using it forever - horrible idea.

Stiletto 0.66s animation time, 0.66s recovery time base (which will be higher in the upcoming patch) Greatsword 1.0s animation time, 2.0s recovery time base (once again, will be higher in the upcoming patch) AoE spell could either be the same speed as a greatsword swing or 3.0 s cast time, 3.0s recovery time base (higher in the latest patch) yes they can be interrupted

I didn't take it semi serious Bester sent those to me and I laughed - especially about the free one

I really liked Brood War. Probably the best RTS ever made, although not my favourite - I think Age of Empires 2: The Conquerors is probably my favourite.

Probably just people unfamiliar with RTS style movement. I didn't understand the notion of tactical retreating until I played Warcraft 3 multiplayer. My mate Darren would always run his Death Knight back when I attacked it, and I was like WTF MAN - DISHONOURABLE but it works.

Wish they still made 400 dpi native mice @_@

What's that saying again?

No, the pause before movement is a random delay to de-synchronize the party movement so they don't look like a droid army. The delay is random between 0-10 frames. Who attacks first / casts first depends on "Speed Factor" in the AD&D 2E games, and then after that attacks per round. The rounds are asynchronous though, they are individual for each unit, not global.

Not really, it's even worse - if a dragon has way higher accuracy than average party defense, then yeah their breath attacks are going to be one shot critting party members just like in the pre-order trailer, two characters dropped in a single hit. Gee, so fun. That's one problem with this (or these) system(s), unfortunately.

If the AI targeting was the same as the IE games, it would be pretty easy to manipulate enemies to attack the desired units that you wished attacked. However many people on the forums have complained that it was 'too hard' to do in the IE games (lol) so they may want to make it 'even easier' for them, at our expense unfortunately. But I'll accept that for the removal of engagement.

Yes do another twitch marathon, so I can read more butthurt like this

Blast it. One big thing I forgot to mention is they still really need to change the Attack Speed and Cast Speeds from Speed: Average into actual seconds and milliseconds.

Not 100% true. Engagement is the highest targeting clause. If a unit is engaged, that unit will begin to auto-attack the first unit it is engaged by (including your characters - which is extremely terrible). When Engagement does not exist (I have tested it), the first two targeting clauses remain - first enemy to attack, and closest enemy. Some units only target the first enemy that attacks, and others will override that clause with closest enemy. There is no target re-acquisition however. You can kite enemies around forever with or without engagement. The Infinity Engine games, and many other RTS games have vastly better targeting clauses and they actually have target re-acqusition. One of the dumb things about the Engagement system is that it 'hides' the need to have target re-acquisition a lot of the time, because if a unit is engaged in melee then people with little to no attention to detail will think that everything is 'working correctly'. As many people do here

You really hate pausing and effort don't you. Abilities with stickiness are already in the game and they could be passive, modal or active. Naturally that will require a few more actions from the player but that's the whole point. You actually have to DO something, rather than just stand there and auto attack away. Melee combat is still going to be a standing still boring mess. Many people like the idea of it, and that's where I think a lot of people are having trouble coming to terms with the reality - you guys base your opinions of the system around ideology or what if's and ignore what it actually does. Because you don't move your characters. If you never did that and don't like doing that then of course you're going to say that. Speak for yourself. It's you who isn't listening to us/ And it's one that is easily removed with the deletion of a single class in the game code, takes about two seconds. Abilities are easy to modify. If I had the proficiency that Josh Sawyer has with the game variables and Unity inspector, it would not take me a very long time to change all of the engagement related abilities to something else, especially if I already had an idea about what I wanted them to change it to. They removed crafting, and they removed familiars. They can remove this too with little to no effort, and the game would be better off being designed around in combat movement than stagnant combat. It would be much easier to cut Engagement than to try and make a flawed theoretical implementation work. That is why I think it should be removed, because there is just no way that it will work properly / not be exploitable. Not only does it remove fun gameplay, but it can also be abused quite badly in quite a few cases. You have confessed to enjoying boring combat. You have confessed to preferring passive play, where you just assign to attack and sit there doing nothing. You abuse encounters to make them take the least amount of effort possible. I do not believe the game should be designed around your preferences. This is a combat centric game and the aim of the combat style was supposed to be tactical and reactional. Currently it's not achieving that goal, but I guess you couldn't care less. Second, you claim that engagement (not spell design or encounter design or the undergearing of beta characters or anything else) is to blameYou just don't seem to get it - there are people here that enjoy moving their characters around, and reacting to tactical challenges. You don't seem to be able to accept those facts, based on past comments. You think RTS style movement is 'abusive'. Removal is a terrible option.Removal is a quite sensible and practical option if a feature cannot be implemented properly.

Sure, it is supposed to do that. I am saying that it doesn't need to, because this is a real-time game, not a turn-based game and you do not need to give units free attacks independent of the rules of real time just because you move away from them in combat. They can still attack you as you are moving away and they can chase you. If you're slower than they are they can repeatedly bash you while you're running away. It's also implemented very poorly, so that you can't even shuffle to the side to let another melee unit into the fray. The movement in this game is an abstraction of a combat scenario. People keep thinking it's supposed to be realistic or something, well, it's not. I HATE using RL-inspired examples to try and prove points, but if someone has just completed their sword swing and you deflected it/blocked it etc, you can move backwards while they are in swing recovery ... they can also chase you with that sword, and provided they get in reach, hit you with it and another one of your units can intercede your attacker as well. AoOs are not needed to 'simulate' this situation. If the game had better attack animation interaction with moving targets, then when people move back they'd get hit a bit more often by melee units currently targeting them. I will not accept anything that gives free, unlimited attacks indepedent of the rules of real time. I think melee stickiness through abilities would be much more successful and tactical.

Yeah it does, actually. Who the hell makes an IE successor without left click move, what is that Same with making a Ghost Recon game without right mouse run, that's blasphemy.

Their right-click function should include a cancel like it did in the IE games. Right click hold is formation rotate.

Left-click to move was how it was in the Infinity Engine games, it will not be changed but I think you can re-bind left click to right-click if you so wish. Same goes for left-clicking to interact with an enemy. I am the same with #8, you can't unselect all of your characters which I find annoying. Something I have requested in my recent video as well. The combat log doesn't scroll down properly at the moment, it's buggy. Load times have apparently been largely improved in the upcoming patch You can re-assign keys and you can set hotkeys to abilities.

Everyone seems to have a different thing that puts them off I see your point, but my videos are aimed both at backers and potential players as well as the developers, so when I make those comments it's more aimed at the players who are interested in those features. I did think about the inclusion of those comments after I recorded it, and I was thinking maybe they will listen to that and think exactly those words in your post "Why even bother doing this when he can do it himself". If I am announcing that I intend to try and mod those features if they are not present in the final game, the developers may not bother to develop them if they do not think that many people will use them. Those specific comments were not aimed at the developers, but the players and sometimes it's hard to balance the 'tone' of the videos for both audiences. The devs have thick skin though, so they should be able to see past potential grey areas like that.